Slashdot Mirror
Former Health Secretary Pushes for VeriChip Implants
An anonymous reader writes "Tommy Thompson, the former Bush Health Secretary after implanting a chip into himself, is going to submit a proposal within the next 50 days to promote it for everyone in the USA. VeriChip spokesperson John Procter said 'virtually everyone could benefit from having a chip inserted.' Enjoy your assimilation in the land of the free, citizen."
Of course, VeriChips are for medical use only.
This will be introduced as optional and quickly become as voluntary as credit cards, drivers licenses, and cell phones. Sure, you can opt-out of these, but you will never be accepted at a job that requires them.
Newsflash 1: Director[1] of company that makes RFID chips extols virtues of RFID chips!
Newsflash 2: There is a revolving door between executive-level government and industry!
Newsflash 3: A former government official might use his contacts to lobby for his benefit!
Newsflash 4: Company in question presents its product in a positive light!
Newsflash 5: Melodramaic slashdot sumbission contains no actual news at all.
Frankly, there could be benefits from and novel uses for a universally globally unique identifier that is always with you and can't be lost. But the potential for abuse, obviously, outweighs those benefits. (In fact, if it could only be activated and/or read when you explicitly wished, it might be a good, albeit voluntary, idea. But that's not how this system is applied.)
And further, it's probably not a bad idea for health applications. However, like the Social Security number, it's bound to get misappropriated and misapplied for all manner of other uses. Some of which we
So far, where has it been used? Bars and clubs as gimmicks.
So what does this all mean?
We have a former government official with no official standing or position in government whatever promoting a product of a company of which he's a member of the board.
Stunning.
Bottom line: Sure, absolutely: be vigilant. But there will never be compulsory "implants" that will be required for all. Does that mean a company that would benefit massively from such an idea wouldn't try to promote it? In fact, I'd be worried if a for-profit company operating in a quasi-capitalist society didn't attempt to promote its products. (And no, having national standards for state driver licenses and identification cards was/is not a bad idea.)
[1] Tommy Thompson, while he incidentally may have been the former HHS secretary, is a director of the company that makes the RFID chips.
In other news, umbrella manufacturer thinks everyone could benefit from an umbrella.
Film at eleven.
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
I want my freedom restricted.
I know where spokesperson John Procter can insert his chip!
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Will I be renewed?
From the article:
"According to Procter, the chips can also be used for financial transactions."
Which reminded me of:
Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to
receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Easy access for doctors to our medical records or an easy way for someone to control everything we do, go or buy? "Sorry sir, no chip, no entry". hmm.
What does the Electronic Frontiers Foundation say about all this?!
Well, if it's easy to misuse the system to track people, at least you'll know where to find the people responsible. ;)
When is someone going to say the three words we've all wanted to say to this:
WHAT THE FUCK?
+5, Truth
I'm sure you could opt out of these things, but I'd bet most employers would require them. Sounds like a precursor to GATTICA to me.
word.
The only chip that goes inside my body is the potato kind...possibly the tortilla kind too.
There are many reasons why this is a bad idea, the first and foremost that it violates the 4th Amendment. Americans have the right to be secure in their person. It's the first right laid out in the amendment.
The second problem is that there is very little benefit compared to the cost. The cost being the pain and suffering involved in getting implanted in addition to the medical costs involved in having it inserted.
Add to this the amount of conspiracy talk that's bound to arise, and you're looking at a real lashback from the populace.
You'll find me in favor of the government doing a lot of things, but this is not one of them. It's a poorly thought-through idea and should be resisted as much as possible.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
"We've been working on this for years, it almost feels like an eternity," quipped thompson while lighting a cigar. "It took us 665 iterations before we feel like we got it right. Now we think everyone should have it. Now."
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I've been wearing my stylish tin-foil hat to keep the mind-control rays OUT. Fortunately, this flexible and fashionable garment also serves to keep RF identifiers IN.
And if they decide to plant the chip in a more sensitive place, my tin-foil cup has been protecting my precious bodily fluids for years.
(Yes, I know that RFIDs respond to outside RF, not generate it themselves. The gag is funnier my way. Relax.)
From TFA:
That's really what this is all about, isn't it? Unfortunately, although many may consider implanted RFID chips to be the security 'magic wand', this simply isn't the case. If a beach club can program and insert a chip for you, it's not too far a stretch to imagine terrorist groups programming and inserting bogus chips in their operatives. In the context of security, all this does is create a false sense of security.
The other major concern regarding implanted RFID chips is the increased danger of information/identity theft. If all a thief needs to do to lift your information, including your identity, medical records, and bar tabs, is stand next to you on the subway, we're going to see a whole new chapter written in the history of information theft.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Before we all jump to the obvious conclusion that implanting chips will interfere with civic rights (which it can), it is worthwhile to consider that such implants can be useful. As a medical doctor I encounter patients everey day, who have no clear recollection of their medical history or the medication that they use. In the recent I've prescribed medication that was potentially dangerous because of interference with another drug that the patient was taking but forgot to tell me about when asked. If the pharmacist hadn't noticed there might have been a serious problem. The same applies to genetic conditions that affect medical care. These are often too complicated for the average patient to understand or report correctly. Adverse drug reactions, idem. An electronic patient file can solve these problems but one does not always have access to those. So, there are definitely opportunities here to improve medical care and ease the administrative burden for doctors. I would like to have this technology. As for the privacy issues - if you use a credit card to pay your way through life, you have already given up a lot of your privacy. Same goes for any other process that involves the registration of personal data (such as buying a car). Thorny issue, though.
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
Obligatory Prisoner Quote:
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
But does it run Linux? Could you imagine a Beowolf Cluster of Humans? Wow.
In the NEWS ...
Murder increasing by leap s and bounds as gangs figue out you can make money by stealing the new identity chip implanted in all US citizens..
Some gangs not even using a reader to check whether person ahs a chip.. beofre they shoot..
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
Bottom line: Sure, absolutely: be vigilant. But there will never be compulsory "implants" that will be required for all.
Well, the company that makes them is lobbying to move things in the direction of making them compulsory for all. They may not ever succeed at this. But does that make it okay that they're trying?
Yes, the practice of ex-political officials entering industry and using their contacts for lobbying purposes is common. However just because it is a common thing does not make it a good thing.
At any rate, you are probably right that these things won't ever become mandatory-- in the United States. But there are lots of other places in the world. The government of China, for example, already has national "citizen identification" cards, and already has a precedent of compulsory medical care (for example abortions). Do you think it would be the least bit unusual if this kind of chipping became mandatory there? Because I don't.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Even in some kind of alternate universe where compulsory, mandatory implants for all residents of the United States were a rider on ANY bill, no matter WHAT the bill, it would NEVER pass.
Who said it would need an act of Congress? Get yourself chipped and get a decent reduction in insurance premiums in return and people will wait in line to get one.
Get chipped and you don't have to wait in line at the supermarket.
Get your kids chipped and you can tell where they are at all times and protect them from baddies...
Don't need a law to make it compulsory. I reckon the free market will do just nicely.
The English have been implanting chips in themselves for years and all it has done is made them fatter and depleted the oceans reserves of cod.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Doesn't this remind you of.. Arnold... Mars... Had to pull the thing of out his nose... wtf was that movie...
You seem to be having TOTAL difficulty RECALLing the name of the movie.
...it'll be called "The Freedom Chip".
"Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
This assumes people know it is there, and even then it's an iffy assumption. Remember, riders can be added quite literally at the last minute. Slip it in a 100+ page bill that's up for a vote in less than a day, and watch it slip under the radar. It's happened before and will probably happen again.
Yeah, just carry it in your pocket and make phone calls with it instead.
Speaking as a life-long atheist, I find that most religious texts carry some wisdom, even though I don't believe in their literal truth ("Let him without sin cast the first stone" is a good tenet to live by, whether you believe in the godhood of the guy who said it or not).
In the same vein, I find a lot of wisdom in works of fiction without believing in their literal truth (go read Dune sometime, or anything by Vonnegut).
In this case, I'd say the Revelations comment is relevant: the book describes a nasty situation, whether you look at it as prophecy, allegory, or the ravings of a lunatic. It's a situation we don't want to get ourselves into, regardless of what we believe.
From TFA:
No, it's not a proposal -- YET. But it will be soon.
100 years ago, people said the same thing about a national ID.
Now we have Social Security Numbers. And national ID cards are almost here., having been approved by the REAL ID Act of 2005
Those of us in our 20s will be required by the U.S. federal government to be chipped by the time we are dead. Mark my words.
Compared to other nations, we are not a totalitarian police state, true. But we are without a doubt traveling along a trendline in that direction.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Maybe if they tried this 10 years ago, it might have happened, but here in 2005, no.
10 years ago people were saying exactly the same thing about bank cards and a "cashless society". Some places I have been recently have actually told me that they don't accept cash anymore because of the risk. You'd be surprised what people will accept, only in small increments. This is coming, too. And when it does you will have a choice. But they'll mandate it for newborns, just like vaccines and the basic screening tests every newborn gets.
Why would you oppose this, citizen? It's for the good of society. You wouldn't be a terrorist sympathizer would you? I'm afraid I will have to report this.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
see subject
The problem with a government collecting information of great detail on its citizens is that even if that current government would use that information in ways that only benefit you, governments (like anything else) are not permanent. So if you volunteer for a chip, and that chip can be read and more details put on it as uses are found and applied to this type of identification technology, that information could be used later by a government to harm you.
Think Nazi Germany or worse, Sadistically Opressive East Germany. Or the way the Soviet Union had a reputation for treating its dissenters. Or the way Mugabe handles people who aren't willing to agree with policies they believe are unfair.
This is my most basic, logical argument against this sort of thing, but there is an infinite array of other arguments against this sort of practice.
As much as I'd like to believe that we're at a point where the civilzed world is just that, and that our societies would never be able to devolve into some sick and opressive police state, I don't believe that. I'm sure that Germans wouldn't have believed that their government would get up to what it did if you had asked citizens or soldiers 30 years prior.
This is outside of the concerns of RFID being snagged by someone, anyone at all who has a device in RF proximity.
This is my rationale.
What do you think?
"When the solution is simple, God is answering." -- Albert Einstein
"If anyone ever pressures me to get one of these, he will get a vigorous refusal, which may include the use of firearms."
I don't disagree with you. But, if this sort of thing becomes "mandatory by law", that reaction will generally mean you either get killed in the shoot-out, or incarcerated -- and doubtless when you are incarcerated, you get implanted involuntarily. So it's death or implantation. Maybe you'll choose death. I might just make that choice as well, if it came right down to it. But I suspect most people won't make that choice, and I'm not just talking about the mindless sheep. Most people value their lives more then their freedom.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
This is a wonderful idea, if for no other reason than we finally have an issue that unites the most atheistic, rabid Slashdot privacy fanatics squarely with the fundamentalist Christian religious right.
Seriously, the fundies are going to go apeshit if this even makes it into draft legislation - and the atheists and agnostic pro-privacy people can join them. The Christians have the grass roots political network to block this with a bit of help - I hope that both sides (athiest privacy advocates and Christian fundamentalists) can put aside their differeces long enough to defeat stupidity like this, and, perhaps learn a bit from each other.
Oh, yeah, it's not enough to stop this from becoming law - you also have to pass NEW laws banning insurance companies from discriminating against those who don't get the chip, which is most likely the real danger.
-Steve
Besides, it is "Dr. Seuss" not "Dr. Zeus". One is the author of children's books the other I presume is the doctor of the gods...
B.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
I define it as "deliberately doing something I believe is wrong", usually "because I wouldn't want it done to me". Example: murder. I don't do it, and I hope nobody does it to me. Yes, there are fine shades of meaning I'm leaving out: is it murder to execute a murderer? What if he's a mass murderer? What if he killed your wife/kids? How about if you're drafted and forced to fight in a war where it's kill or be killed? What if you believe in the cause the war is about? You have to answer these yourself, honestly, and there will be no quiz after class. I won't hate you for answering them differently than I would, and I won't try to force you to see things my way.
I don't believe there is an easy yardstick to measure this stuff by. I also know that not everyone agrees, and I don't believe everybody should agree. I can only be responsible for my own choices and my own behaviour. Yours are up to you.
There is no "one size fits all" morality. You've asked me to define "sin" in a self-consistent way, but it's not self-consistent, any more than concepts like "love", "hate", or "fear" are. I decide what's right and wrong for me, and you decide what's right and wrong for you... or you accept a predefined "right and wrong" model from a religion (or maybe you start with a template and customize it a bit). Life is full of this sort of illogical stuff. To deny it, or to try to assign meaning where there is none, is an exercise in self-delusion.
At this point, a religious man would say "that's because God/Buddha/Allah/Odin/Whoever made things that way". I don't know the reasons (and neither do the truly faithful: they have faith, which doesn't require knowledge). I'm just stating what I've observed: the Universe doesn't always make sense to me (and to a lot of other people).
Sometimes I do ask myself, "What would Dad do?"... sometimes I call him up and ask. But ultimately I'm responsible for my own actions... because I hold myself responsible. (I find circular logic makes me dizzy, don't you?)
Wow, that was a long off-topic ramble. But you did ask...
Then why do you advocate silencing them?
Clue, meet LordKazan... wait.. come back!
The fact of the matter is, you have no rebuttal but to tell them to shut up, so in effect, you've lost.
Thank you... come again.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Please define "sin" in a self-consistent way without resorting to deity.
:)
First off, you missed an article in that sentence: a deity. Without it, you sound like Madonna
The best definition of "sin" I ever saw was in Carpe Jugularum by Terry Prachett. I'm paraphrasing, but I beleive Granny Weatherwax said sin is treating other people as objects. No more, no less. All "sins", whether of a religious basis or not, flow from this one thing. Murder, theft, lying, etc..
"This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"