Why don't we Lojack everyone?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Which, again, would be the same with a portable transmitter if you knew when to activate it. There could be two stages to the transmitter's settings. Yellow Alert and Red Alert, if you will. A user could set it to Yellow Alert, which would begin broadcast. At that point, the device would have autonomous security protocols -- it could require a fingerprint with bioelectric signature to deactivate, or a phone call to the tracking center with information and voice authentication. If the device is jammed or destroyed, Red Alert is initiated and authorities can respond to the last known location.

But who's to say you even get the chance, as opposed to them coming up behind you and sticking a chloroform rag to your mouth?[/quote]

Again, we come back to this -- if you wake up, you trip the alarm yourself. If you don't wake up, the only authorities you'll be needing will be a coroner. There's nothing an implant is good for that a portable or wearable unit isn't.

Or it means that if you decide to enjoy that rare Saturday Morning joint, the cops are guaranteed to show up and interrupt your morning cartoons.

Perhaps, but hey, you're breaking the law. Got a problem with it, go get it changed. But like I said before, I'm not interested in debating that, especially not in this thread. And I've provided other reasons why monitering your blood-chem would be a good thing (saving you from overdose, able to tell if you've been injected with something which, by the way, would be handy for you paranoid types who think the gov't is gonna truth serum you, and so on).

The only people I can see being concerned with this problem are diabetics, and current testing kits seem to be working just fine.

Here's a little what-if for you: What happens if new substances are outlawed? What if, suddenly, kosher diets are state mandated, and anyone found in possession of more than an ounce of bacon could face felony breakfast charges? Okay, never mind, that's just fucking stupid.

The point is that finding illegal shit in people's bloodstreams might be a great boon to law enforcement (then again, it might not) but does a state: 1) Need to fight a war where the visible targets just increased by 300% or more, and 2) Have any possible way to end-run the Constitution on the illegal search and seizure issue?

[Ice]

The point is that finding illegal shit in people's bloodstreams might be a great boon to law enforcement (then again, it might not) but does a state: 1) Need to fight a war where the visible targets just increased by 300% or more, and 2) Have any possible way to end-run the Constitution on the illegal search and seizure issue?

Don't know about 1, not being in law enforcement.

As for 2, you have yourself a point. I guess you'd filter out what sets an alarm, ie: if you're gonna die, or if it'll knock you out cold and it's not in a legit place (hospital for example). And before you say I'm being naive in trusting that they'll do this and not moniter for illegal substances like that to violate the Constitution, well, if they do, the case is gonna get thrown out anyway I guess. But I'm not a legal person myself, so I won't try and enter a debate into something I'm not too knowledgable in (ie: Constitutional Law). My title may currently say Red Shirt (although the other one is Jedi Master...imagine that), but I ain't suicidal.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I don't want to take this too far off course, but I'm guessing that at least three times as many people use drugs as get caught for it, hence the 300% increase in visible targets for law enforcement.

[RedImperator]

I was the one who said I wouldn't accept devices that track blood chemistry, and yes, it was with drugs in mind. While I won't get into drug laws here, the reason I don't want that information tracked and broadcasted is that it's a gross violation of privacy. If the government isn't allowed to come into my house any time it likes to search for drugs, and if a cop isn't allowed to stop me at random on the street and subject me to a blood test, why in the world should it be allowed to have a constant, real-time readout of my blood chemistry? Aside from the philosophical and legal concerns, there's the very practical problem of creating a market for devices which can jam or spoof the chips. Now, I hadn't thought of diabetics, but blood sugar can be tracked without measuring for illicit chemicals.

[Death from the Sea]

Alot of people are freaked out by the idea of a Federal ID card here in the U.S., so I think a sub-dermal electronic tag would definitely be out.
It would have the benefits Darth Wong described, but as others said it would also have too great a risk to be abused.
Although I am all for the Federal ID card, because then people of all ages will have IDs not just 16 and up with their DL.

[Arrow]

And as for the RIAA argument one person brought up that has just stuck in my mind...

Imagine if the MPAA or RIAA was able to see what you DVDs and CDs you looked at in a store and then monitored your Internet traffic to make sure you weren't illegally obtaining those items (everything that goes across the lines and/or is stored on an ISP server is up for grabs, and it helps to know what your looking for).

Explain to me how they're gonna pull that one off. The implants being described give a location, not a video feed of what your eyes see! All they would possibly know is that you were in a music/video store. Big whoopdeedo. And the internet thing has little to do with this; it's another topic entirely.

I brought that up as Mike mentioned putting video cameras in all public places. Basically, the knowledge of the population's public activities would allow a group to select who to monitor on the net. So I went off on a tangent. Big whoopdeedo.