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."

Comments

Medical Purposes Only

[DosBubba]

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.

Re:Medical Purposes Only

[canuck57]

As you point out:

Sure, you can opt-out of these, but you will never be accepted at a job that requires them.

We can add that a credit card is necessary to travel. Sooner or later this chip, or one like it will be required. Saying it is optional is kind of a misnomer if you want a life.

I recently attended a "National Identity Card" presentation and the subject of implants was raised. I initially walked into the conference thinking it was a good idea. But after listening to the speakers it became quite clear this is about population control by government. Business will love it as they can profile you for insurance (all kinds), purchasing habits, travel patterns and target marketing.

I walked out realizing liberty and freedom are in fact at risk from with-in.

Lets realize the fact that 95% of the terrorists of 9/11 and more recent bombings in London had valid papers. They could also have had valid implants too. It is a myth these new technologies of tracking people are any more effective than a tried and relatively cheap passport. Techo hype companies don't like this fact and the population is getting marketing, and not reality message. Good security is about people keeping their eyes open.

Re:Medical Purposes Only

[Tim C]

Lets realize the fact that 95% of the terrorists of 9/11 and more recent bombings in London had valid papers.

As I understand it, the London bombers were British citizens. They didn't just have valid papers, but a cast-iron legal right to be in the country. No amount of ID can protect from a legal citizen with no record "suddenly" turning suicide bomber.

Newsflash

[daveschroeder]

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.

Only if it includes DRM

[liquid stereo]

I want my freedom restricted.

Too easy

[AndroidCat]

I know where spokesperson John Procter can insert his chip!

"We finally got it right"

[Loundry]

"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 can see it now...

[lendude]

...it'll be called "The Freedom Chip".

Re:"MOVE ALONG NOTHING TO SEE HERE"

[DigiShaman]

You know of the Social Security number right? Now, try getting a loan from a bank, getting a new car, house, cable/teleco service, water, electricity....etc.

Fact is. You SSN *IS* your identifier. It's your second name in numerical format now. ...of course, it was explicitly stated that it was not be used as such when SSN was first introduced. But....

Re:Disgusting

[Urchlay]

Please define "sin" in a self-consistent way without resorting to deity.

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...