You know, if in a job interview they say "by the way, this a secure installation and we require the insertion of an ID chip" I can (at this point) choose whether or not I consent to this. If I say no I won't get the job, of course, but I can certainly get a different job elsewhere, under terms I like better.Darth Wong wrote:Wow, they can use these chips to identify employees as they move through a building. Whoooooo, I'm scared now.
It's the possibility of coercion I am concerned about. Of my current employer saying "we are moving to chip ID's and you must get one". At which point I have to choose between consenting or getting a different job. Or of a health insurance company mandating installation of these chips as a condition of coverage. The city I work in - Chicago - will shortly become the city with the largest number of video cameras monitoring public places. My place of employment has hidden cameras. And you call ME paranoid? Why, suddenly, must everyone be watched? And what good, really, does this security do? One of my co-workers last year was raped and severely beaten in one of these monitored public areas. They got the whole assault on tape. Doing so did not, obviously, prevent the crime, did it? She was still raped, still beaten, still spent time in the hospital healing from her injuries. In what way did she benefit? No one even came to her rescue for two hours! The camera was watching, but apparently no one was watching the camera.
A lot of the "security" technology is like that - a very expensive means of instilling a false sense of protection. Now, IF there had been a warm body watching the camera, that had given the alarm immediately and gotten aid for this woman as soon as possible I might argue it had been worthwhile... but she was found by another pedestrian who called 911 on her behalf, not by the security guards we are told are watching and protecting us.
Likewise, I see these chips as another potentially expensive false security blanket. I might be wrong on that - but I AM skeptical of a lot of the hype around any new gizmo.
I am perfectly content to go up to a security desk and state my business to a human being, including showing my ID. I have no problem if the security requirements of a private building require me to stand in front of a video camera and the guard to phone the person I am visiting, so they can physically see who I am and give their OK. One of my friends lives in just such a building. I have no problems with this, because I feel that is a true security system and it is applied equally to all visitors, even those known to the guards. After all, I shouldn't go up to my friend's apartment when they're not home, should I? (Yes, they do have a means of arranging for long term stays of relatives or condo-sitters - but since I'm neither I'm in the "visitor" system) This is, to my mind, a good system because it prevents physical entry of unauthorized people.Ah yes, people might know when I enter a building. Oh no, the sky is falling!!! Run for your lives!You are very naive if you think a handy ID number implanted in your arm will be used only for medical record look-up, or that others won't be eager to inject more chips in your arm for their own purposes.
I do have an issue with automatic scanning because I don't believe it prevents an action - it merely records who was there and you still have to go back and reconstruct what happened.
Actually StormTrooperofDeath did suggest that...Then live with the downsides of not getting it. No one's talking about stormtroopers breaking into your house and forcing you to accept this thing
I don't have a problem with that.If you refuse, fine; you get charged more. Life is like that.
Right now, I think airline security is largely "feel-good" window-dressing and I elect not to participate in it. This means I have to do all my flying myself ... with is 3-4 times the cost of the same trip on the airlines. OK, it's worth it to me. Or I drive the distance. Or, if I didn't have the pilot license I'd have to charter a small plane - and people do, in fact, do exactly that. Charter business is one of the few areas of aviation that is both increasing and showing a profit these days. Nor is it just rich people. There are solidly middle-class families that show up at our local airport. Yes, I do feel strongly enough about some things to pay more for them. My life is not just about money.
Now, if I had to go overseas that would be a different dilemna... would the benefits of the trip outweigh the hassle of a security system that I don't feel makes us any more safe and secure than we were prior to September 2001? But I haven't had to face that question yet.
My driver's license does not, however, contain the whole of my identity. And if the chip is truly just for medical records and never incorporates more than that then I might consider it a reasonable thing... but only time will tell if it truly stays on that level or not. I am not an early adopter. I prefer to get on board after the initial de-bugging. Personal preference. Maybe I'm just a highly risk-averse person. Or maybe I'm just unusually choosey about the risks I take.Yeah, it's so much harder to steal a driver's license than a chip embedded in someone's arm.
Why not? The government and society has a legitimate interest in my ability to drive legally, and the license (if authentic) is proof that at some point I passed a test proving a minimum level of competance. I have no qualms about showing said ID to an officer of the law while I am operating my vehicle to prove my legitimacy. Using said license, this same officer can look up my driving record, which is a perfectly legitimate use of it.I hope you don't have a driver's license either, then.
However, I do NOT walk down the street with my driver's license pinned to my shirt for all to see. Which, if an embedded chip can be scanned at a distance of one foot, is essentially what you're doing.
Again, I don't have a problem with what I consider a legitimate use of an ID. Nor do I have a problem with preventing wrong-doing with effective screening... but I do object, strongly, to being forced to display personal information to everyone in my vicinity. And I do object, strongly, to false security because it is expensive and leaves us vulnerable.
If the person in question truly has "nothing to hide" then why would they hesistate to publish their information publically? Prudence? Why is it so strange that different people would draw that line at different places?Nice false-dilemma between banning a simple ID chip and putting your personal data on the world wide webIf you think this lack of privacy is such a great thing go ahead, take out a full-page newspaper ad or set up a website with all your personal and financial information on it. See what happens.
Not at present, no - satsify me that it will NEVER have such information and I might consider it.Since this chip won't have your bank account number or home address encoded directly on it anyway, what exactly is your problem?
In actual fact, there does exist a club where you can be chipped and scanned to pay for your drinks... the BBC did an article on it recently. So, in actual, fact, there ARE people walking around with their credit card information embedded in their arms already.
Yeah, I know that - in fact, I even do that as part of my job, I look up information on people who cold-call our offices. My experience with discovering just how much is publically accessible and free is part of why I am so cautious (or paranoid, depending on how you look at it).The fact that people can use your ID to look you up in corporate databases and figure out the other information if they have the right access?
If you Google my name you will get no hits... which is a state I try to maintain. Granted, there are services that would allow you to dig up information on me, but you have to pay money for those. So, it makes it a little harder than it would be otherwise. The fact I try to live an law-abiding and ethical life also means there is very little out there on me even in the pay-for-data databases. Last time someone did a background check on me they thought a mistake had been made with my driving record - there was absolutely nothing on it, all the way back. No mistake - I truly have never had so much as a parking ticket, much less any sort of violation.
Yes, it can be a pain in the ass to maintain a spotless lifestyle and keep my info under wraps... but hey, it's important to me and a choice I freely make. If you don't care, fine. But I fail to see why I should yield any more of my privacy just because my fellow citizens don't care about theirs.
You misunderstand me - I don't mind it being legal. I don't care if YOU want to get a chip. I do care if someone tries to force me to get a chip. Because "it's such a good idea". I don't care about the "convenience" aspects of this, I loathe it on a visceral level. Ugh! Two phrases that make my skin crawl are "it's for your own good" and "this will be so much more convenient". Convenient for WHO?Prove that these nebulous possibilities of yours justify banning it, because you're saying it shouldn't be allowed. You need a good justification to outlaw something, and I haven't seen you provide one.I do grasp the concept of the chip... but I also realize the technology has other applications as well.
.
