Would you be willing to get yourself "chipped"?

Handsome Bob

We had an interesting debate in college about technology and constructivism. Somehow the idea of electronically tagging people via the means of a chip came into the equation. Surprisingly it provoked very emotional responses that I wasn't expecting with people citing Orwell's 1984 as why they would never be willing to be tagged.

My attitude though is if you have nothing to hide then you are fine. Imagine the benefits of being tagged. Children like Maddie McCann could have been found instantly after being kidnapped. People in general who go missing could be instantly found. It would have a huge impact on the amount of crimes related to murder and peadophilia.

I guess it comes down to how much trust you would have in the governments of this world to act solely in our interests. I mean if the Irish government told you that it would be a system that would only be monitored when a missing person case actually occurs or something similar, would you believe them? Am I being too naive?

Please don't move this mods, I want to here the musings of my fellow gentlemen and of course, of the ladies who regularly post here.

amacachi

I'm against it. I'm fairly libertarian-leaning on most things, and I have no problem with the Airport security scanners whatsoever, but I do think that chipping people is a step too far.
Some people say we're not free any more, but I think that's bull, the freedoms I enjoy now are massive, and I want to keep it that way.

There's also the question of how these tags would be used. Again if it was for financial tracking and purchasing I'd be completely against that.
Even without chips we're already giving too much of ourselves up and it's something that concerns me. I think someone set up a page along the lines of "burgle these houses" by mining facebook for status updates relating to going on holidays and showed how easily something so seemingly innocuous could be used against an individual. Fairly sure it was on a coupla week delay so it couldn't actually be used but that's beside the point.

Herbal Deity

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Children like Maddie McCann would have had their chips ripped out of them by their kidnappers

FYP.

Similarly, criminals would just remove them were they to go on the run.

While I would be against this in principle in the first place, the whole idea is flawed, as these things just wouldn't remain in the bodies of anyone who didn't want to be tracked.

Handsome Bob

Herbal Deity wrote: »

FYP.

Similarly, criminals would just remove them were they to go on the run.

While I would be against this in principle in the first place, the whole idea is flawed, as these things just wouldn't remain in the bodies of anyone who didn't want to be tracked.

Yeah, I thought of that, like you could just cut off the limb off that had the chip. But I was thinking that we wouldn't know ourselves what part of the body the chip is at, and that we wouldn't all have the chip in the same place. So if you're a child abuser/rapist/murderer you'd have no idea where to look.

Khannie

People get it done with dogs. I don't see why not once it's voluntary. Depending on how it was set up, I would trust the civil servants of the state enough not to abuse it.

star-pants

Just a question for clarification - dog/cat chipping doesn't let you know where they are, if you had a chip reader you'd sweep it over where the chip should be and it would give you the info. This 'tagging' seems to be more of a tracking chip? (Am I reading this right?) Just when you say you'd be able to find missing children that makes me think of a tracking device.

With regards to dog/cat chipping, sometimes it doesn't work, the chip can move about and if it's not close enough to the skin the reader won't read it. People have had to get their pets re-chipped. It's not overly common but it does happen.

TBH I'd be somewhat on the fence for tracking tagging type chip - just because whilst yes in theory it's a good idea, as mentioned missing people and so forth. But if information was to get out / into the wrong hands / breach of system - this would be on a bigger scale than say banks or social security I would assume.?
What kind of information would be associated with the tag?

Delirium

I'd be against it, mainly because I don't trust a government to have enough security in place to protect the information.

Plus what would stop other groups from using the chip/tag information as they like??

In no time, you'd have equipment for sale that would let people know where a certain tag is at any given moment.

It could even get to the stage where you would be scanned instead of using cash. Soon the government would have info on spending/diet/vices etc.

LD 50

Bare minimum would be all that's nesacery. Name, DoB, blood type, and location given in Lat and long, and if the technology becomes available, heart rate. There would be no need for banking details or SS no./PRSI numbers or anything like that.

The chip could be placed into a baby in the hospital, soon after birth once its well enough. And then each person has the option to have it de-activated or removed after their 18th/21 birthday. This would prevent cases like Maddy's, and still allow people to have the freedom once they reach that age, to get rid of it if they don't want Big Bruv tracking them.

LD 50

koth wrote: »

It could even get to the stage where you would be scanned instead of using cash. Soon the government would have info on spending/diet/vices etc.

You could say people already have access to that info, through Credit Card companies and what details they share with 3rd parties

Delirium

LD 50 wrote: »

You could say people already have access to that info, through Credit Card companies and what details they share with 3rd parties

Not a problem, as they'd be convinced I live on a diet of cds and dvds:pac:

Wibbs

Khannie wrote: »

People get it done with dogs. I don't see why not once it's voluntary. Depending on how it was set up, I would trust the civil servants of the state enough not to abuse it.

:eek: Good God I would not. Ok lets say I was very drunk and thought I could trust the current mob. How would I know to trust any future mob? That's the problem.Thin end of the wedge. I am no tin foil hatter but to trust my freedom to a bunch of pencil pushers? No. Just no. Have you heard about our freedom of information act? Give me an ever loving break.

This notion of "ah sure if youve nothing to hide" is a red herring that plugs into our paranoia and ideas of the possible boogeyman. It restricts our freedoms with little effect on the actual boogeymen. In the end it would be a control thing, a way to make sure you paid tax thing. Lets imagine if we're all good little doggies and are chipped and then a group come along and you need something to hide? Game over.

As it is the current mob along with the government couldnt organise a píssup in a brewery so I would trust them. Id trust them to think I was a german shepard poodle cross called Max.

cocoa

LD 50 wrote: »

The chip could be placed into a baby in the hospital, soon after birth once its well enough. And then each person has the option to have it de-activated or removed after their 18th/21 birthday. This would prevent cases like Maddy's, and still allow people to have the freedom once they reach that age, to get rid of it if they don't want Big Bruv tracking them.

Choice architecture is important. For many decisions, the majority go with the default, so you should think long and hard before you set it, or whether there should be one. I'd be in favour of forced choice or opt in myself...

This nothing to hide idea seems fairly common, but it comes down to privacy and what that means to people. I don't have anything to hide in the sinister sense, but I'd rather not use the toilet naked in public, to choose a random example. Also, I'm strongly against increased 'safety' or 'security' measures which don't achieve this supposed goal, but merely increase fear instead. Sounds like lose-lose to me...

I'd recommend 'little brother' by Cory Doctorow for anyone who wants a bit of an adventure story (aimed at young adult readers but enjoyable by anyone really IMO) about how security can go wrong that's not so far removed from the world we live in. Fear by Dan Gardner is an interesting read about the world we live in as well.

Thomas828

No way. I wouldn't want that. It's the same reason i won't get tattoos or piercings. It's unnatural, not the way God meant me to be.

Mackman

Its a good idea for criminals, once you've been convicted of a crime you get one sort of thing.

And kids too.

But i would be against everyone getting it. Just for the sake of my privacy. I dont care who has access to it, there is still someone out there who can look me up and find me wherever i am. Makes me shudder just thinking about it.
The whole "if you've got nothing to hide" thing is rediculous. What if there's something that you do, a hobby, addiction, that isnt illegal, but very embarrassing if made public. You could be blackmailed etc.

Handsome Bob

star-pants wrote: »

What kind of information would be associated with the tag?

I would say the bare minimum as LD50 pointed out. I understand where koth is coming from in regards to people acquiring information about us through their own means, but I think if the only information that is available on the chip is your name, location and DOB, then that shouldn't be a *major* problem.

I should of made myself a bit more clearer everyone, I didn't mean that this would be a decision solely in the hands of the government. This is a democracy, I would only ever agree to being "tagged" if the public got a say in every little detail in regards to the use of the technology. Everything from what information should be kept on the chip to whether it should be voluntary or compulsory, all these decisions would be in the hands of the people.

Delirium

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I would say the bare minimum as LD50 pointed out. I understand where koth is coming from in regards to people acquiring information about us through their own means, but I think if the only information that is available on the chip is your name, location and DOB, then that shouldn't be a *major* problem.

I should of made myself a bit more clearer everyone, I didn't mean that this would be a decision solely in the hands of the government. This is a democracy, I would only ever agree to being "tagged" if the public got a say in every little detail in regards to the use of the technology. Everything from what information should be kept on the chip to whether it should be voluntary or compulsory, all these decisions would be in the hands of the people.

Another issue to me would be the potential for cloning the ID of a chip. Even if it had only the basics stored on it, you could have a situation where it could be used as proof of a crime.

Much like the way bank account transactions are used in criminal cases. Someone clones your chip, murders someone and you were at home all night at the time. Potentially, you could be charged because the chip isn't a constant monitoring system. It works based on the chip passing a scanning/logging device as you enter or leave buildings for example.

I know it's an extreme example, but it's just one example of how identity theft could become a lot easier.

OldGoat

I'm anticipating it tbh. I can't wait. Tag me, chip me, barcode me. Let me pay for a train journey with a swipe of my arm. Let the adverts be personally aimed specifically at me as I walk down the highstreet - "John, your favourite brand of boxers are onsale in here". Let me hold up my hand to order a pint from the barman and at the same time a chip reader debits my bank account. Taxi? Swipe. Kebab? Swipe. Marvolous I say. Bring it on.

Handsome Bob

Are you being sarcastic?

Delirium

OldGoat wrote: »

I'm anticipating it tbh. I can't wait. Tag me, chip me, barcode me. Let me pay for a train journey with a swipe of my arm. Let the adverts be personally aimed specifically at me as I walk down the highstreet - "John, your favourite brand of boxers are onsale in here". Let me hold up my hand to order a pint from the barman and at the same time a chip reader debits my bank account. Taxi? Swipe. Kebab? Swipe. Marvolous I say. Bring it on.

You been watching the Island movie again?? :P

OldGoat

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Are you being sarcastic?

Nope, not at all. I love the idea. I'd push the boundries of 'wetwear' as far as I could.

koth wrote: »

You been watching the Island movie again?? :P

well, BladeRunner started me down the path. Or was it the Bionic Man? Or Metropolis?
Naaaaa, it was H.P. Lovecrafts bioware.
Or...

I think I might have a touch of FutureShock

Gerty

Pointless as far as i can see, if there is a way for it to be removed.

For criminals, obviously they'd just have it removed.

For children maybe, but if they're kidnapped, its not as if the kidnapper wouldn't know about the chip. He'd probably end up mutilating the child trying to find the chip in the most common places.

RobbieTheRobber

OldGoat wrote: »

I'm anticipating it tbh. I can't wait. Tag me, chip me, barcode me. Let me pay for a train journey with a swipe of my arm. Let the adverts be personally aimed specifically at me as I walk down the highstreet - "John, your favourite brand of boxers are onsale in here". Let me hold up my hand to order a pint from the barman and at the same time a chip reader debits my bank account. Taxi? Swipe. Kebab? Swipe. Marvolous I say. Bring it on..

Im not religous but i remember some crazy song from around 1999 which sampled a crazy preacher and he spoke about how the number 666 appeared in all barcodes and how american troops ahd now being barcoded bla bla the rest was religious but interesting enough for me to add here.

Linky about barcodes and the six hundred and sixty six theory
http://www.av1611.org/666/barcode.html

Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or on the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.

– Rev. 13:16-17 (RSV)

I am oppossed to any tracking chipping or branding of me. The potential for misuse is too great. Even look at how revenue staff in this country abused their position to check lottery winners and celebrities details before being caught and stopped.

funk-you

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I guess it comes down to how much trust you would have in the governments of this world to act solely in our interests.

Here's one problem. Even though you may trust the guy in charge today, the next guy to come along mighn't be so trustworthy and has all these powers that were given to the trusted guy. It's easier to give powers than take them away.

Secondly, it's none of anyones business what I do or where I go until I do something judged wrong by society for the greater good and cohesion of society.

If I do and if you can prove it in a court of the people, you will deprive me of my liberty which is my punishment for the act I committed. Once my punishment is over, I am again a member of society with all the rights that entails. I have a mark against my name but can now be a part of and decide what type of society I want to live in. One act, one punishment. Not a continuing one if I'm no danger to society.

Lo-jacking people is an unnessessary step which is open to abuse. Bad things happen, if we weren't being eaten we were being frozen/starved/raped. Being alive isn't the big cotton wool happy happy journey people think.

Try and look after youself/family/friends, get by...get on and have as many good times as you can. Tracking every possible danger to your life and worrying about it is no life at all.

-Funk

Herbal Deity

Those who would be comfortable with this - would you also be comfortable with removing the requirement for search warrants? Nothing to hide and all that...

L31mr0d

Yeah, about 5 years ago I did my thesis on this technology and it's already well past being ready to be rolled out.

It's going to happen whether we like it or not, and I'd be willing to put money on the US being the first to implement it.

Picture it this way, countries start closing their borders to anyone without these chips. Now it is optional to get the chip (like it is optional to get a passport) but it will mean that you will not be able to enter certain countries in your lifetime. Some will live with this, the majority will not.

These chips will initially be rolled out with a bunch of personal benefits, like OldGoat has remarked. Keeping track of your children, providing medical details immediately if you are in an accident, saving you time purchasing items, increasing your home security... etc.

People will buy into it, and in fact they already are to a limited degree. No one will see the negatives of such a scheme because any news you will hear of such a technology will bombard you with the positives.

Plus people are selfish and people are sheep. The majority will absorb this new technology with ease to take advantage of all the personal benefits it will bring to their existence.

OldGoat

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Those who would be comfortable with this - would you also be comfortable with removing the requirement for search warrants? Nothing to hide and all that...

For those who are uncomforable with this - would you be comfortable with removing all writing instruments incase your signature gets forged?
A trite reply I know but still apt.


You can't live in perpetual fear of what the future MIGHT bring.
.

enda1

Firstly if someone wanted to disable this system, there is always a way.

Secondly, its a stupid idea. Imagine the system was hacked? It would be so easy to trace anyone and then rob/rape people when you know no one is around.

The information is too powerful for any organisation to have control over.

Herbal Deity

OldGoat wrote: »

You can't live in perpetual fear of what the future MIGHT bring.
.

It's not fear, it's wariness.

Handsome Bob

funk-you wrote: »

Here's one problem. Even though you may trust the guy in charge today, the next guy to come along mighn't be so trustworthy and has all these powers that were given to the trusted guy. It's easier to give powers than take them away.

Secondly, it's none of anyones business what I do or where I go until I do something judged wrong by society for the greater good and cohesion of society.

If I do and if you can prove it in a court of the people, you will deprive me of my liberty which is my punishment for the act I committed. Once my punishment is over, I am again a member of society with all the rights that entails. I have a mark against my name but can now be a part of and decide what type of society I want to live in. One act, one punishment. Not a continuing one if I'm no danger to society.

Lo-jacking people is an unnessessary step which is open to abuse. Bad things happen, if we weren't being eaten we were being frozen/starved/raped. Being alive isn't the big cotton wool happy happy journey people think.

Try and look after youself/family/friends, get by...get on and have as many good times as you can. Tracking every possible danger to your life and worrying about it is no life at all.

-Funk

Our system, as it is, is very much flawed in how we manage to minimise serious crime. Since you dismiss what I've said, what is your solution in discouraging child abusers, rapists and murderers from committing their heinous acts? The Death Penalty doesn't seem to dissuade them in America and elsewhere. In countries such as ours, tough jail sentences don't seem to work. These people seem to think that once they clear a few initial obstacles then they are home scott free, and in many cases that indeed happens. So I ask you again, what is your solution?

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Those who would be comfortable with this - would you also be comfortable with removing the requirement for search warrants? Nothing to hide and all that...

It's not the same thing. Within the context of how we live now, one very much needs evidence to search my premises. One can't just search my premises for no reason. However within the context of what I've outlined, say I committed a murder, I can have no complaints about being arrested or searched if the system recorded me in the exact same location as the victim was when their tag went "offline".

enda1 wrote: »

Firstly if someone wanted to disable this system, there is always a way.

Secondly, its a stupid idea. Imagine the system was hacked? It would be so easy to trace anyone and then rob/rape people when you know no one is around.

The information is too powerful for any organisation to have control over.

Imagine the enormity of the system and what it entails. Logic dictates that the security system would be water tight. We're talking about, even on the most basic level, data that if hacked would be absolutely impossible to decrypt. The information would be useless to the hacker if he can't read it.

L31mr0d

enda1 wrote: »

Imagine the system was hacked?

Imagine the systems that control the launch of the US' Nuclear Warheads where hacked? Or the power plants, heck lets imagine a scenario as ridiculous as the "fire sale" attack in Die Hard 4.0.

What you are imagining is rather basic compared to what would be implemented. It would be no different than the way it is now but instead of using credit cards, passports, licenses, keys, birth certs... etc you will have an embedded chip with a unique ID. Your local takeaway will be able to access your previous orders and recommend your usual but they will have no way of knowing any of your personal details. You personal details will not be saved on the chip itself, it will only act as a key for retrieving your details from relevant databases.

The hacker would need to be able to access those databases. We are in as much of a risk of this right now, than we would be with the chip. What's stopping a hacker getting into your local bank and retrieving your details?

Herbal Deity

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Our system, as it is, is very much flawed in how we manage to minimise serious crime. Since you dismiss what I've said, what is your solution in discouraging child abusers, rapists and murderers from committing their heinous acts? The Death Penalty doesn't seem to dissuade them in America and elsewhere. In countries such as ours, tough jail sentences don't seem to work. These people seem to think that once they clear a few initial obstacles then they are home scott free, and in many cases that indeed happens. So I ask you again, what is your solution?

The reason the death penalty and tough prison sentences don't work is not because people think they can get away with serious crimes, it's because they're not thinking about the consequences when they do something. If you chip people, prosecutions might go up, but tbqfh, I don't see a drop in crime rates.

Imagine just how much this whole system will cost. Spend the money in disadvantaged communities, on recreational facilities for young people etc. Facilitate better lives for people and you'll see less crimes committed. This 1984ish, police state bullshít just doesn't work.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Imagine the enormity of the system and what it entails. Logic dictates that the security system would be water tight. We're talking about, even on the most basic level, data that if hacked would be absolutely impossible to decrypt. The information would be useless to the hacker if he can't read it.

They might be able to secure the core system. But what almost definitely would happen is that people would figure out how to intercept and/or block the signals. This means they'd be able to set up their own monitoring points and plot peoples movements on a smaller scale and block monitoring in certain areas.

Also, BATTERIES - how?

Delirium

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Our system, as it is, is very much flawed in how we manage to minimise serious crime. Since you dismiss what I've said, what is your solution in discouraging child abusers, rapists and murderers from committing their heinous acts? The Death Penalty doesn't seem to dissuade them in America and elsewhere. In countries such as ours, tough jail sentences don't seem to work. These people seem to think that once they clear a few initial obstacles then they are home scott free, and in many cases that indeed happens. So I ask you again, what is your solution?

Punishment doesn't stop crime, it at best reduces the numbers somewhat but child abusers, rapists and murderers think differently to the average man/woman.

Otherwise we'd all be at it. I've never seen a good enough proposal that would remove all instances of a crime. And I wouldn't be able to suggest one.

It's not the same thing. Within the context of how we live now, one very much needs evidence to search my premises. One can't just search my premises for no reason. However within the context of what I've outlined, say I committed a murder, I can have no complaints about being arrested or searched if the system recorded me in the exact same location as the victim was when their tag went "offline".

Yes you could if the cloning of the tag situation I mentioned arose.

Imagine the enormity of the system and what it entails. Logic dictates that the security system would be water tight. We're talking about, even on the most basic level, data that if hacked would be absolutely impossible to decrypt. The information would be useless to the hacker if he can't read it.

Thats assuming whoever has the info is encrypting it to a high enough standard.

There have been instances of very sensitive info being stored on employee laptops (I think it was a government department here) without any encryption at all.

Herbal Deity

To add to the cloning/hacking thing. What would happen would be that the encoding schema would eventually be cracked through signal interception and inspection, and then replica devices to transmit these signals would be manufactured, meaning anyone could "be" anyone else, anywhere, anytime

Handsome Bob

Herbal Deity wrote: »

The reason the death penalty and tough prison sentences don't work is not because people think they can get away with serious crimes, it's because they're not thinking about the consequences when they do something. If you chip people, prosecutions might go up, but tbqfh, I don't see a drop in crime rates.

They're not thinking about the consequences because in their mind they are *sure* that they can get away with. They think they can beat the system and quite often they do too, so a system is needed that can't be beat.

Imagine just how much this whole system will cost. Spend the money in disadvantaged communities, on recreational facilities for young people etc. Facilitate better lives for people and you'll see less crimes committed. This 1984ish, police state bullshít just doesn't work.

It would be no guarantee that if you better someone's life chances that they will be dissuaded from committing crime. I mean that kind of reasoing suggests that no-one from the middle or upper class commit crime which they most certainly do, we see it every day.

Alas, I do concede your point about the cost, I thought about that and realised that financially, it doesn't seem viable. That's to me though, maybe a financial expert can tell us otherwise.

They might be able to secure the core system. But what almost definitely would happen is that people would figure out how to intercept and/or block the signals. This means they'd be able to set up their own monitoring points and plot peoples movements on a smaller scale and block monitoring in certain areas.

Again, this information is going to be heavily encrypted. Just take the example of one person, let's call it point A and the system point B. Until point A reaches point B, the information will not be decrypted until it reaches the person who has the security *clearance* to decrypt it. If it was intercepted before getting to point B it wouldn't matter because the hacker wouldn't have the means to decrypt the information.

Also, BATTERIES - how?

Batteries for what? The tags or the actual system?

Herbal Deity

The tags. They need batteries to transmit signals. If they're buried beneath skin, how do you replace them?

Delirium

Herbal Deity wrote: »

The tags. They need batteries to transmit signals. If they're buried beneath skin, how do you replace them?

Not all tags require batteries, they're called passive tags. Similiar in concept to a barcode on a product.

Herbal Deity

Passive tags have a very, very short range.

Handsome Bob

koth wrote: »

Yes you could if the cloning of the tag situation I mentioned arose.

Where would one begin with this though? This goes back to my initial question about how much you'd be willing to trust those in power to implement the system ethically. How many people would have access to the technology in order to clone a tag? I imagine not many would, would you trust them? I'm not talking about bereaucrats, I'm talking about the scientists that would be *actually* implementing the system.

Delirium

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Passive tags have a very, very short range.

I know, but I'd imagine the tagging system wouldn't be monitored from orbit but rather by the person passing through monitoring points at entrance to buildings/public transport etc.

Herbal Deity

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Where would one begin with this though? This goes back to my initial question about how much you'd be willing to trust those in power to implement the system ethically. How many people would have access to the technology in order to clone a tag? I imagine not many would, would you trust them? I'm not talking about bereaucrats, I'm talking about the scientists that would be *actually* implementing the system.

You wouldn't need that much technology to clone a tag through reverse engineering...

Delirium

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Where would one begin with this though? This goes back to my initial question about how much you'd be willing to trust those in power to implement the system ethically. How many people would have access to the technology in order to clone a tag? I imagine not many would, would you trust them? I'm not talking about bereaucrats, I'm talking about the scientists that would be *actually* implementing the system.

You'd intercept the signal, much like they do with the chip and pin scams that happen.

The cable from the terminal for the card is fed to a device where the people intercepting the signal store the data for later use.

I honestly don't know enough about it, but I remember watchdog on the BBC giving an example. The person skimming the data wasn't even in the building.

funk-you

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Our system, as it is, is very much flawed in how we manage to minimise serious crime.

I'm not denying this at all. We do need a solution but it will have to happen over the long term and from the very roots of how we see ourselves, how we act and what we see as acceptable behaviour. Having your mam beside you with a wooden spoon making you be nice isn't going to fix anything. Thats kind of what I see these chips as.

Also, being made conform to an ever increasing set of rules with punishment for trying to change them in a non violent manner or constantly being tracked if you voice a negative opinion can't be good for a free society.*

*It's not a big stretch of the imagination

If you want all the technological benefits (takeaways and all that) Whats wrong with an optional card? You want these benefits you can have them. If you don't...leave it at home.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Since you dismiss what I've said, what is your solution in discouraging child abusers, rapists and murderers from committing their heinous acts?

Tbh, this pisses me off. I haven't dimissed anything you've said. I've voiced a difference of opinion in a respectful way. I'm not on boards to pick fights or act as if I'm better than anyone. It's a discussion, not a row.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

The Death Penalty doesn't seem to dissuade them in America and elsewhere. In countries such as ours, tough jail sentences don't seem to work. These people seem to think that once they clear a few initial obstacles then they are home scott free, and in many cases that indeed happens. So I ask you again, what is your solution?

I didn't come into the thread with a solution for all of societies woes. You asked " Would you be willing to get yourself "chipped"?" I indicated I wasn't and gave my reasoning why.

I do believe a lot of changes need to be made but more to do with changing attitude and actions rather than the judicial system or tracking people.

-Funk

Handsome Bob

funk-you wrote: »

I'm not denying this at all. We do need a solution but it will have to happen over the long term and from the very roots of how we see ourselves, how we act and what we see as acceptable behaviour. Having your mam beside you with a wooden spoon making you be nice isn't going to fix anything. Thats kind of what I see these chips as.

Except Mammy won't be guaranteeing you life in the slammer. As I said, we have a system that people don't take seriously because they are too confident that they can beat it, and they often achieve this. Maybe if there was a lot less scope for getting away with crime, it would have a significant impact.

Also, being made conform to an ever increasing set of rules with punishment for trying to change them in a non violent manner or constantly being tracked if you voice a negative opinion can't be good for a free society.*

*It's not a big stretch of the imagination

Negative opinion? I'm talking about crime, not people being censored. As I outlined before, I wouldn't want such a system implemented without our say. I'd want every little detail to be put to the public.

If you want all the technological benefits (takeaways and all that) Whats wrong with an optional card? You want these benefits you can have them. If you don't...leave it at home.

I'm not sure I follow, do you mean an optional card instead of a tag? I imagine not many would be criminals would be too bothered with picking up an optional card.

Tbh, this pisses me off. I haven't dimissed anything you've said. I've voiced a difference of opinion in a respectful way. I'm not on boards to pick fights or act as if I'm better than anyone. It's a discussion, not a row.

Apologies for taking you up wrong, I thought I had detected a dismissive tone in your post. I'm not having a go, I just reckon if someone is going disagree completely with something then they should have an alternative solution.

I don't want to lose sight of the reason why I made this thread, which was to get other people's opinions on whether it would work. I have admittedly been sucked into defending what my opinion is as of right now, so apologies if I have been defensive.

krudler

I wont answer phonecalls from private numbers, never mind have a microchip installed so people know where I am

Raze_them_all

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Yeah, I thought of that, like you could just cut off the limb off that had the chip. But I was thinking that we wouldn't know ourselves what part of the body the chip is at, and that we wouldn't all have the chip in the same place. So if you're a child abuser/rapist/murderer you'd have no idea where to look.

It would take about a week for someone to come up with working tech to detect the radio signal or whatever it emits.


I would never get this installed on me. Hell hackers now can completely hack alot of government stuff, How long do you think it'd be before hackers crack it and sell it to crimms/ post how to track others just for the fun.

Also the isish government implant trackers? The same guys who spent 50 million on computerised voting. I can see how that'd go. Go in everyone gets jabbed with the same needle/implant device and only 1 person ends up chipped.

Kepti

Thomas828 wrote: »

No way. I wouldn't want that. It's the same reason i won't get tattoos or piercings. It's unnatural, not the way God meant me to be.

How do you know how god meant you to be? Are you opposed to everything unnatural?

Raze_them_all

Thomas828 wrote: »

No way. I wouldn't want that. It's the same reason i won't get tattoos or piercings. It's unnatural, not the way God meant me to be.

Ehm unnatural?? You are typing something, it shows up on a screen and people all over the world can read it. Have you ever flown in a plane, because you are literally flying in a metal shell...

CDfm

I wouldnt want it. Not because i have anything to hide but because I value my privacy.

Just take the personnel guy at CIE putting tracking devices on guys cars.Or the school in the states turning on the webcams of school laptops and monitoring kids at home.Both recently reported stories.

Its not about big brother its all the little brothers out there who may decide our lives need improving.

Or the little white lies we tell to keep life palatable- not illegal but maybe immoral

- i am on my way dear

- no your not yor dot is stationary ,you are with that little tramp arent you

Kepti

CDfm wrote: »

I wouldnt want it. Not because i have anything to hide but because I value my privacy.

Just take the personnel guy at CIE putting tracking devices on guys cars.Or the school in the states turning on the webcams of school laptops and monitoring kids at home.Both recently reported stories.

Its not about big brother its all the little brothers out there who may decide our lives need improving.

Or the little white lies we tell to keep life palatable- not illegal but maybe immoral

- i am on my way dear

- no your not yor dot is stationary ,you are with that little tramp arent you

You won't gain much sympathy by arguing that this will make adultery more difficult for you.

I'd never be comfortable with mandatory chipping for regular people, maybe some of the worst criminals. However, I don't know if it's fair to use the argument that it's susceptible to corruption against it, because really, what isn't?

That case with the school laptops was frightening. I like my privacy. I can't comprehend how an entire school board thought that kind of intrusion was in any way acceptable.

L31mr0d

Kepti wrote: »

I'd never be comfortable with mandatory chipping for regular people

It is far more insidious than that. If it was blatantly made "mandatory" there would be outrage. Forcing someone to do something is obviously wrong so people will revolt. No, it will be made "optional" for everyone, but there will be perks associated with getting the chip.

Eventually, when you are walking around in a city where life is made so much easier for those with chips, you will cave and justify it. Everyone will.

But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

Kepti

L31mr0d wrote: »

It is far more insidious than that. If it was blatantly made "mandatory" there would be outrage. Forcing someone to do something is obviously wrong so people will revolt. No, it will be made "optional" for everyone, but there will be perks associated with getting the chip.

Eventually, when you are walking around in a city where life is made so much easier for those with chips, you will cave and justify it. Everyone will.

But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

Not everyone will. If the benefits outweigh the potential costs, then yes a lot of people will decide to get them. That's not surprising, that's just the way things are. I think that if someone wants to sacrifice some potential privacy in order to make their life easier, they should be allowed to make that choice.

As far as Orwellian prophecies go, voluntary chips are relatively tame.