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.
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.
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?!
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.
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.
In other news, umbrella manufacturer thinks everyone could benefit from an umbrella.
If they're only thinking that, they're doing it wrong. They should be paying off some dumb-ass politician so that he can introduce legislation mandating that everyone has to buy an UmbrellaCo brand umbrella.
...it'll be called "The Freedom Chip".
"Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
"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.
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...