I've never really understood that argument. I think it's peddled by paranoid people who have no idea how much easier we have made it to track people already.
Think of cctv, mobile and emails, electronic information on databases about us, gps, etc... It all came about to make it easier to find and communicate with people. The government can already track you, if they are so inclined, but that doesn't mean they would, unless you were a terrorist or some other dangerous criminal.
What this would do though is vastly improve emergency serves, detect abuse quicker, find missing persons and catch violent criminals. To me, the pros would far outweigh the cons.
Well maybe if you have ever been wrongly accused by Police, or been the victim of mistaken identity, you might feel more defensive over your Civil Liberties.
It would be another system rife for corruption and if the idiots who run any govt department, (like the Tax Credit retards), are running the show, it will be a complete f**k up.They can't even get CRB right with new technology, this would be no different.
Well maybe if you have ever been wrongly accused by Police, or been the victim of mistaken identity, you might feel more defensive over your Civil Liberties.
It would be another system rife for corruption and if the idiots who run any govt department, (like the Tax Credit retards), are running the show, it will be a complete f**k up.They can't even get CRB right with new technology, this would be no different.
No, I don't want to be treated like a criminal.
I have been wrongly accused by the police, and no I am not defensive. Mistakes happen, even in the current system. Implementing what could potentially be a far more fullproof and accurate system, to me is no bad thing.
Do we? Well we need to own and control our own ID certainly to make use of to establish relationships with other people and with organisations. For example to satisfy a bartender that one is old enough to buy a drink, but they do not need and should not have access to any other part of our ID than that - not even our actual age.
That is a very different state of affairs from having our ID owned and controlled by someone else such as the state.
Do we? Well we need to own and control our own ID certainly to make use of to establish relationships with other people and with organisations. For example to satisfy a bartender that one is old enough to buy a drink, but they do not need and should not have access to any other part of our ID than that - not even our actual age.
That is a very different state of affairs from having our ID owned and controlled by someone else such as the state.
What do you mean by "controlled by the state"? We wouldn't be controlled any differently to how we are currently controlled. If we broke the law, the police would use the information available to find us, this would just be able to give them more/ better information.
Interesting article about tracking people, the technology does exist and is in use.
Only in a manner of speaking. It still requires a cellphone (or equivalent) in close proximity (pocket, belt, whatever) to be transmitting the location data.
On a more general point, every system of monitoring and surveillance that has ever been put in place has been abused (or subverted) at some point by those we were supposed to be able to trust. The more invasive and pervasive the system, the worse the effects of the abuse.
I like my benevolent overlords to take a hands-off approach, thanks very much.
I think it would be pretty ineffective, the criminals would soon work out where people are typically chipped and cut them out of their victim's bodies.
Optional microchipping is something I wouldn't disagree with, but it is not for the state to dictate to us that we must have one as we should have complete control over our own bodies and and a right to privacy. I have nothing that I need to hide, but that doesn't mean that people should be allowed to snoop on me. There are many perfectly legal things that people may want to hide.. that they eat far too many KFCs for example. Plus, who is going to pay for all this?
For many reasons, already stated by me and others. Those saying we aren't really that important to the powers that be, were making the point that it wouldn't just be used to track every person, day to day, willy nilly. It'd be used when it needed to be used, to track dangerous offenders, find injured people, or any of the other uses listed. Like cctv, it's ignored most of the time, but it is extremely useful if the police want to find soneone who just mugged an old lady in the centre of town, for example.
It's also a hypothetical, meaning if we had the system up and running and working. You can debate the practicalities if you want, but it'd be like me saying- 'If, in the future, we were able to visit the nearest stars, do you think it would be a good idea?' and you countering with; 'Well, I don't think it'd be practical to visit the nearest stars because we don't have the technology'. Just to be clear, I'm not going to implement this technology, I just was interested to debate whether people would think it would be a good idea "if" we could get it working at some point in the future. Hypothetical, get it?
It's not like it's that far fetched or impossible an idea either. We have many complex systems already running in the world today. Are bank cards a total disaster? Is the monetary system as a whole a total disaster? These are complex systems that, for the most part, work brilliantly. I don't think anyone would argue for a return to a time when none of this technology existed, on the basis of the occasional error. The general concensus is, it's worth keeping, which is why we still have it and continue to improve it. There is no reason this couldn't happen some day too.
I am very well aware of what hypothetical means, but thank you for explaining it . As you wished to debate something that is, at this moment in time, not a reality, and wished for people's thoughts on this, I thought it not out of the limits of the discussion to raise the issue of cost, and so on.
After all, even if the technology did exist, there is always the question whether or not it is worth the expense, and I do not feel that the benefits outweigh the cost.
If it were to be implemented, and if the system were indeed up and running, I still would not consider it to be a good idea. Not if it was made compulsory. It would have to be up to the individual whether or not they wanted to be chipped. And the problem with that is that even if it is introduced as voluntary, it appears to be human nature to then question those who do not go along with it. Do they have something to hide? Otherwise, nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right? Plus, over time, non-chipped people might find themselves excluded from certain services, as new uses of the chip are introduced. So, in the end, it would pretty much become compulsory anyway.
I have been wrongly accused by the police, and no I am not defensive. Mistakes happen, even in the current system. Implementing what could potentially be a far more fullproof and accurate system, to me is no bad thing.
The problem is that EVERY new system just results in new errors and criminal activities, and creates a new set of problems, even if it removes some.
Take money. As we have moved from barter, through coins, notes, cheques, debit cards, cashpoints, chip & pin, online banking, we haven't eliminated fraud, theft, scams and so on.
Indeed, the criminals have got cleverer, and can develop schemes and technological solutions to steal your money as fast (if not faster) than the banks can combat it. My bank details are as secure now, as they were 20 years ago - they can be compromised in a different way, but all the changes have just replaced one set of risks with another (and because people think that computers can't make mistakes, a whole set of new challenges proving stuff)
It wouldn't be more foolproof - I think it's safe to predict that, within months of the system details being announced, enterprising folks would have identified work rounds.
And I still have the fundamental challenge - I am presumed innocent, therefore the state has no right to know where I am at all times. To change that to a presumption that we must be tracked, even if it is with good intent, changes one of the fundamentals of our law. It follows that we should have no objection to having all our emails, texts, phone calls monitored. Our conversations recorded. Cameras inside our homes. After all, nothing to hide, nothing to fear, eh?
And if the system fails, glitches, and you don't exist, or your ID is stolen, or your chip is stolen?
It's not a fear of technology that drives people to think this is a fundamentally stupid idea - it's consideration of the negative consequences.
I am very well aware of what hypothetical means, but thank you for explaining it . As you wished to debate something that is, at this moment in time, not a reality, and wished for people's thoughts on this, I thought it not out of the limits of the discussion to raise the issue of cost, and so on.
After all, even if the technology did exist, there is always the question whether or not it is worth the expense, and I do not feel that the benefits outweigh the cost.
If it were to be implemented, and if the system were indeed up and running, I still would not consider it to be a good idea. Not if it was made compulsory. It would have to be up to the individual whether or not they wanted to be chipped. And the problem with that is that even if it is introduced as voluntary, it appears to be human nature to then question those who do not go along with it. Do they have something to hide? Otherwise, nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right? Plus, over time, non-chipped people might find themselves excluded from certain services, as new uses of the chip are introduced. So, in the end, it would pretty much become compulsory anyway.
That's close to how I would envision it actually. Think of the present day world. Sure, you could shun all modern technology, not have a bank account ever, never lend any money, not have a mobile phone, completely stay off the system in every way in other words. People would probably view you as some sort of freak, desperate to stay off the system because you have something to hide, or are paranoid. You'd be missing out on so many key benefits of said technology, but heck, it's your choice. So pretty much nobody chooses that. Likewise, I don't think this would ever be compulsory, but instead, go down lines similar to what you have described. There'd be so many benefits in the end, everyone would want in, then over time, it'd just become another thing in life nobody would pay attention to, like all the technology we have built up today.
I actually think a microchip would be too invasive, but I wouldn't rule out something like an eye scanner or thumb scanner. I think it's about making things easier and more efficient for everyone. You don't think that the modern computer system is a lot better than having the old paper file system? Also, human error is going to occur no matter what system we have. That's why the pros and cons are usually weighed up first.
Actually, as someone who has spent days of inactivity at work because of computer system failure, I think there is still a lot to say for paper files . It's amazing how reliant we have become on technology. Not that I am generally opposed to it. I use my computer and Internet every day, and wouldn't want to be without them.
I'm not sure about eye scans, but then, I am a bit precious when it comes to my eyes. As for thumb scanners or something similar... it depends on what they would be used for. I do see some advantage to it.
Like you say, it's all about weighing the pros and cons.
The problem is that EVERY new system just results in new errors and criminal activities, and creates a new set of problems, even if it removes some.
Take money. As we have moved from barter, through coins, notes, cheques, debit cards, cashpoints, chip & pin, online banking, we haven't eliminated fraud, theft, scams and so on.
Indeed, the criminals have got cleverer, and can develop schemes and technological solutions to steal your money as fast (if not faster) than the banks can combat it. My bank details are as secure now, as they were 20 years ago - they can be compromised in a different way, but all the changes have just replaced one set of risks with another (and because people think that computers can't make mistakes, a whole set of new challenges proving stuff)
It wouldn't be more foolproof - I think it's safe to predict that, within months of the system details being announced, enterprising folks would have identified work rounds.
And I still have the fundamental challenge - I am presumed innocent, therefore the state has no right to know where I am at all times. To change that to a presumption that we must be tracked, even if it is with good intent, changes one of the fundamentals of our law. It follows that we should have no objection to having all our emails, texts, phone calls monitored. Our conversations recorded. Cameras inside our homes. After all, nothing to hide, nothing to fear, eh?
And if the system fails, glitches, and you don't exist, or your ID is stolen, or your chip is stolen?
It's not a fear of technology that drives people to think this is a fundamentally stupid idea - it's consideration of the negative consequences.
Yes, new technologies have teething problems, and even accepted systems have some errors, within acceptable limits and as such are accepted and improved over time.
Yes, we may have fraud, but that doesn't mean we say no to the whole system. We still keep it for it's great benefits.
What do you mean by "controlled by the state"? We wouldn't be controlled any differently to how we are currently controlled. If we broke the law, the police would use the information available to find us, this would just be able to give them more/ better information.
You are confusing your person with your ID. Your person is the one who should be in sole control of your ID and gets to decide who has access to which parts of it.
It's also a hypothetical, meaning if we had the system up and running and working. You can debate the practicalities if you want, but it'd be like me saying- 'If, in the future, we were able to visit the nearest stars, do you think it would be a good idea?'
The technology already exists that will let you post your name, address and phone number on DS, but you'd rather not do it I'm sure.
Even if we can (do X) it doesn't follow that we should. Privacy and anonymity are to my mind basic human rights.
We're already the most watched country in the world but surveillance isn't going to stop murders murdering, rapists raping, abusers abusing., the damage is already done.
It's a semantic point to some, but I think the most RECORDED country in the world may be more accurate. The vast majority of security cameras are only watched if there's something to check back for. The country isn't full of security guards watching you pick your nose, it has a large number of private security tapes which are only referred to after the event.
The technology already exists that will let you post your name, address and phone number on DS, but you'd rather not do it I'm sure.
Even if we can (do X) it doesn't follow that we should. Privacy and anonymity are to my mind basic human rights.
Of course I 'd rather not do it, but I'm glad the technology exists to be able to track people online if they are involved in anything unscrupulous.
You live in a society full of ways to track you. You are anonymous only as long as you manage to stay within the law. I'm afraid any anonymity you think you'd have if you deviated from what is considered acceptable by society is an illusion.
You are confusing your person with your ID. Your person is the one who should be in sole control of your ID and gets to decide who has access to which parts of it.
You only have to start a bank account- something most people consider essential, and you no longer have full control of "your ID". Think of all the personal information a person gives out in their lifetimes. If you get a job, your iD is taken, if you don't, and you claim benefits to live, your ID is taken. If you want a house to live in, your ID is taken in some form. We are all already on the system and totally trackable, if someone is so inclined, but I think people still prefer this to perhaps, living in a cave alone, with no modern technology
I have always thought that it would be an excellent idea to microchip violent prisoners.The civil liberties bleeding hearts brigade can kiss my ass.Dogs and cats will eventually all have to be chipped,and these people are below them in the social order.
I have always thought that it would be an excellent idea to microchip violent prisoners.The civil liberties bleeding hearts brigade can kiss my ass.Dogs and cats will eventually all have to be chipped,and these people are below them in the social order.
You don't have much of a choice do you though? I mean if you wanted to not give out an ID in todays world, what kind of life would you have to lead? I don't think it'd even be possible. Like someone said earlier, I think this would start out voluntary and everyone would end up signing up once they saw the benefits.
That's close to how I would envision it actually. Think of the present day world. Sure, you could shun all modern technology, not have a bank account ever, never lend any money, not have a mobile phone, completely stay off the system in every way in other words. People would probably view you as some sort of freak, desperate to stay off the system because you have something to hide, or are paranoid. You'd be missing out on so many key benefits of said technology, but heck, it's your choice. So pretty much nobody chooses that. Likewise, I don't think this would ever be compulsory, but instead, go down lines similar to what you have described. There'd be so many benefits in the end, everyone would want in, then over time, it'd just become another thing in life nobody would pay attention to, like all the technology we have built up today.
I see it as a bad thing, though, that what starts off as voluntary will, over time, likely become inevitable. I mean, I know that a lot of what I do can be tracked. I'm online. I have bills in my name. I use health services. I don't have a mobile phone, nor a loan, and I pay for my shopping with cash, but that is not out of paranoia.
However, having something in your body, something that you cannot switch off, something that links you to state surveillance continuously, in theory, is definitely a step too far for me. Fair enough, I agree that the government doesn't have any interest in me. I'm a boring person. But that chip would still be there. Once it's in, it would be out of my control. And I have this deep-seated notion that my body is mine, and what I do with it is my choice.
If, eventually, the whole system was set up so that to not have a chip would mean I couldn't work, or get access to health care, or take money out of the bank, or I'd be seen as a potential criminal because I don't want the chip, that wouldn't be much of a choice at all.
Plus, like someone else mentioned - how would it be charged? Surely it would need a power source of some kind, if the chip is powerful enough to be tracked in the way you mention. Do you have to plug yourself in? What if your body rejects it? My body's rejected piercings before. What about potential health complications? Even if it were perfectly safe, though, I still don't like the idea.
I have been wrongly accused by the police, and no I am not defensive. Mistakes happen, even in the current system. Implementing what could potentially be a far more fullproof and accurate system, to me is no bad thing.
I think it will come, at some point.
The recent NFC tech is a step in that direction - paying using your (NFC enabled) mobile phone. I think such a move would also be followed by the removal of cash at the same time. Guess you could call it, PWF (Pay With Finger). Downside, the government could switch the chip off (eg, suspected of committing a crime, mistake, lost gov laptop issues), and with no cash, you really would be stuck.
I expect to be long dead by the time it happens, so wont have to deal with it. I guess the first generation to grow up with it already implanted at birth wont know any difference, and will just accept it as normal.
Comments
Well maybe if you have ever been wrongly accused by Police, or been the victim of mistaken identity, you might feel more defensive over your Civil Liberties.
It would be another system rife for corruption and if the idiots who run any govt department, (like the Tax Credit retards), are running the show, it will be a complete f**k up.They can't even get CRB right with new technology, this would be no different.
No, I don't want to be treated like a criminal.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/surveillance-big-brother/microchipping-children-for-their-safety/1031/
I have been wrongly accused by the police, and no I am not defensive. Mistakes happen, even in the current system. Implementing what could potentially be a far more fullproof and accurate system, to me is no bad thing.
That is a very different state of affairs from having our ID owned and controlled by someone else such as the state.
What do you mean by "controlled by the state"? We wouldn't be controlled any differently to how we are currently controlled. If we broke the law, the police would use the information available to find us, this would just be able to give them more/ better information.
On a more general point, every system of monitoring and surveillance that has ever been put in place has been abused (or subverted) at some point by those we were supposed to be able to trust. The more invasive and pervasive the system, the worse the effects of the abuse.
I like my benevolent overlords to take a hands-off approach, thanks very much.
Optional microchipping is something I wouldn't disagree with, but it is not for the state to dictate to us that we must have one as we should have complete control over our own bodies and and a right to privacy. I have nothing that I need to hide, but that doesn't mean that people should be allowed to snoop on me. There are many perfectly legal things that people may want to hide.. that they eat far too many KFCs for example. Plus, who is going to pay for all this?
I am very well aware of what hypothetical means, but thank you for explaining it
After all, even if the technology did exist, there is always the question whether or not it is worth the expense, and I do not feel that the benefits outweigh the cost.
If it were to be implemented, and if the system were indeed up and running, I still would not consider it to be a good idea. Not if it was made compulsory. It would have to be up to the individual whether or not they wanted to be chipped. And the problem with that is that even if it is introduced as voluntary, it appears to be human nature to then question those who do not go along with it. Do they have something to hide? Otherwise, nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right? Plus, over time, non-chipped people might find themselves excluded from certain services, as new uses of the chip are introduced. So, in the end, it would pretty much become compulsory anyway.
The problem is that EVERY new system just results in new errors and criminal activities, and creates a new set of problems, even if it removes some.
Take money. As we have moved from barter, through coins, notes, cheques, debit cards, cashpoints, chip & pin, online banking, we haven't eliminated fraud, theft, scams and so on.
Indeed, the criminals have got cleverer, and can develop schemes and technological solutions to steal your money as fast (if not faster) than the banks can combat it. My bank details are as secure now, as they were 20 years ago - they can be compromised in a different way, but all the changes have just replaced one set of risks with another (and because people think that computers can't make mistakes, a whole set of new challenges proving stuff)
It wouldn't be more foolproof - I think it's safe to predict that, within months of the system details being announced, enterprising folks would have identified work rounds.
And I still have the fundamental challenge - I am presumed innocent, therefore the state has no right to know where I am at all times. To change that to a presumption that we must be tracked, even if it is with good intent, changes one of the fundamentals of our law. It follows that we should have no objection to having all our emails, texts, phone calls monitored. Our conversations recorded. Cameras inside our homes. After all, nothing to hide, nothing to fear, eh?
And if the system fails, glitches, and you don't exist, or your ID is stolen, or your chip is stolen?
It's not a fear of technology that drives people to think this is a fundamentally stupid idea - it's consideration of the negative consequences.
That's close to how I would envision it actually. Think of the present day world. Sure, you could shun all modern technology, not have a bank account ever, never lend any money, not have a mobile phone, completely stay off the system in every way in other words. People would probably view you as some sort of freak, desperate to stay off the system because you have something to hide, or are paranoid. You'd be missing out on so many key benefits of said technology, but heck, it's your choice. So pretty much nobody chooses that. Likewise, I don't think this would ever be compulsory, but instead, go down lines similar to what you have described. There'd be so many benefits in the end, everyone would want in, then over time, it'd just become another thing in life nobody would pay attention to, like all the technology we have built up today.
Actually, as someone who has spent days of inactivity at work because of computer system failure, I think there is still a lot to say for paper files
I'm not sure about eye scans, but then, I am a bit precious when it comes to my eyes. As for thumb scanners or something similar... it depends on what they would be used for. I do see some advantage to it.
Like you say, it's all about weighing the pros and cons.
Yes, new technologies have teething problems, and even accepted systems have some errors, within acceptable limits and as such are accepted and improved over time.
Yes, we may have fraud, but that doesn't mean we say no to the whole system. We still keep it for it's great benefits.
The technology already exists that will let you post your name, address and phone number on DS, but you'd rather not do it I'm sure.
Even if we can (do X) it doesn't follow that we should. Privacy and anonymity are to my mind basic human rights.
It's a semantic point to some, but I think the most RECORDED country in the world may be more accurate. The vast majority of security cameras are only watched if there's something to check back for. The country isn't full of security guards watching you pick your nose, it has a large number of private security tapes which are only referred to after the event.
Of course I 'd rather not do it, but I'm glad the technology exists to be able to track people online if they are involved in anything unscrupulous.
You live in a society full of ways to track you. You are anonymous only as long as you manage to stay within the law. I'm afraid any anonymity you think you'd have if you deviated from what is considered acceptable by society is an illusion.
You only have to start a bank account- something most people consider essential, and you no longer have full control of "your ID". Think of all the personal information a person gives out in their lifetimes. If you get a job, your iD is taken, if you don't, and you claim benefits to live, your ID is taken. If you want a house to live in, your ID is taken in some form. We are all already on the system and totally trackable, if someone is so inclined, but I think people still prefer this to perhaps, living in a cave alone, with no modern technology
No, they are not.
You don't have much of a choice do you though? I mean if you wanted to not give out an ID in todays world, what kind of life would you have to lead? I don't think it'd even be possible. Like someone said earlier, I think this would start out voluntary and everyone would end up signing up once they saw the benefits.
I see it as a bad thing, though, that what starts off as voluntary will, over time, likely become inevitable. I mean, I know that a lot of what I do can be tracked. I'm online. I have bills in my name. I use health services. I don't have a mobile phone, nor a loan, and I pay for my shopping with cash, but that is not out of paranoia.
However, having something in your body, something that you cannot switch off, something that links you to state surveillance continuously, in theory, is definitely a step too far for me. Fair enough, I agree that the government doesn't have any interest in me. I'm a boring person. But that chip would still be there. Once it's in, it would be out of my control. And I have this deep-seated notion that my body is mine, and what I do with it is my choice.
If, eventually, the whole system was set up so that to not have a chip would mean I couldn't work, or get access to health care, or take money out of the bank, or I'd be seen as a potential criminal because I don't want the chip, that wouldn't be much of a choice at all.
Plus, like someone else mentioned - how would it be charged? Surely it would need a power source of some kind, if the chip is powerful enough to be tracked in the way you mention. Do you have to plug yourself in? What if your body rejects it? My body's rejected piercings before. What about potential health complications? Even if it were perfectly safe, though, I still don't like the idea.
Me too, was awful, civil liberty is all to me.
The recent NFC tech is a step in that direction - paying using your (NFC enabled) mobile phone. I think such a move would also be followed by the removal of cash at the same time. Guess you could call it, PWF (Pay With Finger). Downside, the government could switch the chip off (eg, suspected of committing a crime, mistake, lost gov laptop issues), and with no cash, you really would be stuck.
I expect to be long dead by the time it happens, so wont have to deal with it. I guess the first generation to grow up with it already implanted at birth wont know any difference, and will just accept it as normal.