Slashdot Mirror


Mexican Attorney General Gets Microchip in Arm

novakreo writes "Rafael Macedo de la Concha, Mexico's Attorney-General, now has a non-removable microchip in his arm, to track his movements and to give him access to a new crime database, according to Bloomberg. The article says that eventually around 160 Mexican officials will have a chip implanted." (Wired and CNN are both running the very similar Reuters report, too.)

7 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah well... by nametaken · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...EVERYTHING is removeable. The question is what happens when you do.

  2. Can't be removed? by jerith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "can't be removed" -- I doubt that. *Anything* can be removed from the human body if the remover the required skill and doesn't really care about collateral damage.

    I suddenly have a mental image of a Mexican criminal trying to get into a government installation carrying an arm...

  3. Microchip in arm by Avada+Kedavra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Civilian contractors in Iraq need this technology
    not Mexican Attorney Generals.

  4. A fine assasination tool by mrmeval · · Score: 3, Insightful



    ``The system is already in place and I already have it,'' he said. ``It's only for access, for security and so that I can also be located at any moment anywhere I am.''

    If I have the key I can drop an NLOS on you ass baby!

    http://www.raytheon.com/products/nlos/

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  5. Sounds like a bluff by color+of+static · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Think about it. You want to threaten the bad guys, who are a little less educated and a whole lot more guilable then you are. In that light you concoct a story that makes it sound like this database is being watched with "superhuman" effeciency by the head in each district. Throw in the part about tracking and non removable to make kidnapping seem dangerous, and you keep the officials safe on top of it.

    This sounds like it is the high tech version of the "This is protected by an alarm system." sticker. Instead of just buying them and sticking them on your windows, you do a press conference.

  6. Re:Tracking by GPLDAN · · Score: 3, Insightful

    hedless man:

    1. My take on it is that they mean "not trivially removeable", like a wristwatch. It's under the skin, I doubt it's grafted to the bone.

    2. His RFID code can be read to allow him access to the bank. It's a heck of a lot better than a driver's license as ID.

    3. Kidnapping is a HUGE problem in Mexico. huge. Hollywood put Denzel Washington in a movie, "Man on Fire" - about the kidnapping rings in Mexico. Vincente Fox has been asked to crack down on the issue. Mexican police are shot at about as often as U.S. forces in Baghdad, i.e. just about daily. You just don't read about it unless you read Spanish newspapers, like La Raza or others. At this point, RFID might be a minor deterrent to kidnapping. But it might just persuade potential enemies to just kill him outright in the street. In fact, they may put a hit on the guy JUST TO SEND A MESSAGE.

    I see a world like the one in Minority Report within my lifetime, and I'm 35. The Gap has a electronic voice that greets you as you walk in. Every subway car you board goes into a database. Every transaction your credit card makes goes through a heuristic filter for abnormal pattern matching, and certain kinds of deviations get you reported automatically to the government. RFID is just the means to make it happen.

  7. Re:But how many US officials have the chip?.. by Rich0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Although I agree that implanting people with chips is pretty dehumanizing, if you agree to a particular job you have to agree with the particular terms of employment, no matter how absurd, if you don't like it then find a new line of work its that simple.

    I dunno. Suppose your kids are starving and the only job in town has an indentured servitude clause in their contract. Should that be legally permissible?

    You might suggest that the slave employer is at least taking care of his slaves instead of letting them die. However, I'd argue that it is immoral to allow somebody to die of starvation at your doorstep if you have the ability to render immediate aid to prevent this. Sure, I can't be the savior of the world, but if I see a man bleeding to death on the sidewalk of my house and don't even call an ambulence, what does that say of my character?

    Some employment conditions should be illegal simply becuase they are inhuman. Employers have a tremendous amount of power - particularly over those without highly in-demand talents or skills. You or I may be able to design computer software or something of high value. Some people are working hard just to be a Walmart greeter. Most normal people are somewhere in-between.

    Workplaces are something to be regualted for certain. That doesn't mean that we need expensive regulation that doesn't serve any benefit. However, to just say that an employer-employee relationship isn't anybody's business but their own is very naieve...