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?!
When is someone going to say the three words we've all wanted to say to this:
WHAT THE FUCK?
+5, Truth
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
But does it run Linux? Could you imagine a Beowolf Cluster of Humans? Wow.
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.
Thing is, this could be put in a card or a brecelet and be only minimally less effective, with fewer bad implications.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
...it'll be called "The Freedom Chip".
"Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
Instead of storing this data in an implanted chip, why not encode this data on re-writable magnetic strip on a credit-card-type card (with no personally identifiable info) that you can keep in your wallet/purse/keychain etc?
It's a good idea to have this info available for legitimate medical uses, but an implanted RFID doesn't do enough to strike a balance between privacy and usefulness.
Although not meant to be serious, I'll respond anyway.
Most likely the people responsible will exempt themselves from the system, as they always do.
"VeriChip and Ruffles join, create new RFID 'chip'"
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.
"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.
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...