Slashdot Mirror


Wisconsin Could Ban Mandatory Microchip Implants

01101101 writes "The Duluth News Tribune is reporting that Wisconsin could be the first state to ban mandatory microchip implants in humans. The plan was authored by Rep. Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids and Gov. Jim Doyle plans to sign the bill. The bill still leaves an opening for voluntary chipping." Slashdot covered one instance of mandatory microchip implants back in February.

24 of 395 comments (clear)

  1. Choice by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I realize that people have a choice as to their jobs and could choose to have a different job rather than be implanted, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Having chips planted into the body of an emloyee is pretty darn good place to start.

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  2. Doesn't need to be mandatory by Oldsmobile · · Score: 5, Insightful

    RFID chip implants don't have to be mandatory. All you have to do is make it a rule that you can't fly, or cross the border, or get a drivers license without one.

    Then they will be de-facto mandatory and those who don't get them are society's rejects or should be investigated for being possible terror suspects.

    --
    Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
    1. Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory by starwed · · Score: 5, Informative

      You missed the point: that some companies were requiring these of their employees.

    2. Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory by Khammurabi · · Score: 5, Insightful
      RFID chip implants don't have to be mandatory. All you have to do is make it a rule that you can't fly, or cross the border, or get a drivers license without one.
      Are you implying that Americans will just sit back and let that happen in the first place? I don't know a single person that would stand for the government pulling that one over on us.

      Now I do think it's plausible that businesses will start requiring RFID chips to be implanted. The added security precaution will seem very enticing to corporate types. Just start imagining only chipped IT employees being allowed in server rooms, or only "Top Secret" chipped people being allowed into Sandia National Labratories, and you'll start to see the benefits.

      The government may toy with the idea, but in the end it will be businesses leading this crusade. Kudos to my home state for being proactive about this.
    3. Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Are you implying that Americans will just sit back and let that happen in the first place?

      Yes, they usually do. Fighting back takes time out that they could be spending making money or watching television to relax from working so hard making money so that they will have the money to watch television to relax. Or something like that...

      I don't know a single person that would stand for the government pulling that one over on us.

      Well, I wish I knew some, too. Unfortunately, most people (at least in the US) are not like that.

    4. Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory by Steffan · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "RFID chip implants don't have to be mandatory. All you have to do is make it a rule that you can't fly, or cross the border, or get a drivers license without one."

      "Are you implying that Americans will just sit back and let that happen in the first place? I don't know a single person that would stand for the government pulling that one over on us."
      Substitute:
      • The government will set up 'Free Speech Zones' where protesters must stand, set apart from regular crowds
      • People will be held without a trial for indefinite periods of time, without access to counsel and without even public mention made of the fact that they have been imprisoned
      • The government will perform wiretaps and searches without specific cause, and without receiving a court order, or with the permission of 'secret courts', the membership and findings of which must remain sealed
      I'm sure all of us would have said...
      Are you implying that Americans will just sit back and let that happen in the first place? I don't know a single person that would stand for the government pulling that one over on us.
      ...five years ago...
    5. Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory by Aladrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is exactly right. And if you don't believe it, think of this:

      A driver's license/state ID is -NOT- mandatory. But try to do ANY paperwork without one and you'll see how non-mandatory it really is.

      I'm in full support of this law, I just don't think it'll do any good when all is said and done. (Not by itself, anyhow.)

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    6. Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory by Oldsmobile · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jose Padilla was arrested in Chicago, though as of late has finally been indicted.

      Nevertheless, habeus corpus was suspended for four years. Perhaps this means anyone can be arrested without charge for atleast four years?

      --
      Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
    7. Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And both the wars in which they could have been captured (Afghansitan and Iraq) have been declared as over for years - PoWs are supposed to be released as soon as practical after a war is over. As you said, they're there to keep them from jumping back into the fighting, not to punish them for having been fighting.
      They seem to fit the definition of a PoW to me, and the fact that the organisations for which they were fighting are not signatories to the Geneva conventions is not a reason to not treat them in accordance with them - The US (the people holding them) ARE signatories and so are bound to treat them in accordance with the conventions (they specifically say this). If they are being held and they aren't PoW then they MUST be held as common criminals and charged swiftly and tried UNDER THE LAWS OF THE PLACE WHERE THEIR ALLEGED CRIMES TOOK PLACE - there is no other (legal) classification of prisoner.

  3. victory for privacy by gravesb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Its good to see someone is looking out for individual rights. Maybe its because the law was passed prior to the industry growing large enough to have an effective lobby. I hope that more states see the potential and pass similar laws. If it is passed, it will be interesting to see how it is enforced, and how many companies try and get around it. Also, I could see health insurance giving big "discounts" to people who sign up to get a chip.

    --
    http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
  4. Odd title? Still, good that they are proactive. by crazyjeremy · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is good news, but this isn't this titled incorrectly. Shouldn't it be something like "Wisconsin is the first state to pass a law making it illegal for companies to make microchip implants mandatory". The way it's written it sounds like someone has already made chip implants mandatory and Wisconsin is fighting it... They aren't, they are just being a bit proactive (for once).

  5. Small comfort by BRSQUIRRL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A legal ban on mandatory microchip implantation is pointless in a way, as the real threat is that they will become so pervasive that it will be impossible to lead a normal life (e.g. buy groceries, vote, hold a drivers license) without one.

  6. Re:G...Good news on YRO Slashdot?! by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The bad news is that we have to have laws against your employer requiring a chip to be implanted in your body.

  7. When "voluntary" is mandatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The bill still leaves an opening for voluntary chipping."

    The problem with this is that desparate people will "volunteer" if employers, etc. EXPECT them to volunteer. Just like waiters, waitresses "volunteered" for being exposed to second hand smoking, before smoking was banned completely. Voluntary chipping will hurt the most volnurable segments of the society, who can't even afford not to" volunteer", while the more powerful can stay free.

    For this reason, the bill stinks as it is.

    1. Re:When "voluntary" is mandatory by Tweekster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which actually reminds of the idiotic smoking bans in wisconsin currently happening... They are trying to ban it based on worker health reasons...of course those people are now out of jobs due to the massive loss in business bars have been experiencing. They no longer have to worry about second hand smoke, they dont have a job. Those bans may be repealed in certain areas. and there has been talk of a ban in Milwaukee, but the brewery industry will never allow that one to happen thankfully. Restraunts and such I can understand, bars should not be held to those restrictions since you go to a bar to drink poison. Or how about Cigar bars being basically shut down, you cant smoke a cigar in a cigar bar?

      --
      The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
  8. Not mandatory but anyone opting out by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 3, Interesting
    will be transferred to work in the call centre.

    Well that's how they did it at my place of work. Ok, so it wasn't microchips but I'm sure they'll use the same principle when the time comes. Usual 'security reasons and if you've nothing to hide...' bollocks.

    --
    init 11 - for when you need that edge.
  9. So what? by GuloGulo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The federal government has stomped all over state proclamations like this before, either by hook or by crook. What makes anyone think it won't happen again?

    --
    "The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
  10. If I learned anything from Futurama by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 3, Funny

    it's of the necessitary to resist the Permanent Career Implant Chip. I thank our friends in Wisconsin for leading the way!

  11. Meh, implanting microchips? Who cares? by Cthefuture · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What is the difference between having a chip implanted and having some system that can recognize you by DNA, heat signature, or whatever? Those systems are coming and they're exactly the same thing except without the invasive chip injection procedure. This chip thing is just a temporary measure until the other technology advances.

    There won't be much you can do about it. Businesses love this for security because there is no passcode for someone to steal and employees don't need to remember passcodes. Credit card companies would really love it to help prevent fraud (in theory saving us all money, but we know how that goes). This has all sorts of uses, good and bad. It's coming though...

    --
    The ratio of people to cake is too big
  12. I almost can hear the employers... by RafaelGCPP · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can imagine the dialog between a candidate and the future employer: "Yes, I think you are just perfect for the job. Now, all you have to do is fill those forms, get chipped, and..." "Whoooa! Isn't it illegal? You cannot force me to that!" "You are right but I am not forcing you to take the job either!" The guy takes then the second best, which in turn will accept the chip promptly...

    --
    "There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong."
    H. L. Mencken
  13. Can't be stolen? by kratei · · Score: 4, Funny
    "Procter said VeriChip supports the spirit of Schneider's bill and would not work with companies forcing employees to get implants. However, he said the implants are superior to employee badges or key chains as a way to limit access. "It's more secure. It's discreet and it can't be lost or stolen," he said."
    They think an implated microchip can't be stolen? Um, it can't be stolen as easily as a identity card, but I'd rather have my identity card stolen than have some serious crook borrow my microchip.
  14. RIDF overload? by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 4, Funny
    In my wallet I have the following cards: two credit cards, two debit cards (one for a medical flexible spending account), a library card, an AAA Card, a Costco card, a blue cross medical card, a Guardian Dental card, a discount card for the local tire shop, and a zoo membership. In the past I had up to four grocery store discount cards, but I got rid of them. (I keep my geek card in a passport holder around my neck ;-)

    I can not imagine the pain my arms would feel with that many chips in them!

    --
    We are the Borg...
  15. Oh, for sure it's voluntary! by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fast forward to future...

    Oh, if you want to fly you have to. But it's all voluntary, you don't have to fly.
    Oh, if you want a job at XXX, you have to. But it's all voluntary, you don't have to work at XXX.
    Oh, if you want to vote, you have to. But it's all voluntary, you don't have to vote.
    Oh, if you want to buy food, you have to. But it's all voluntary, you don't have to eat.

    Nobody forces you, ok. All your choice.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  16. Americans will do what they always do -- nothing. by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Insightful
    RFID chip implants don't have to be mandatory. All you have to do is make it a rule that you can't fly, or cross the border, or get a drivers license without one.

    Are you implying that Americans will just sit back and let that happen in the first place? I don't know a single person that would stand for the government pulling that one over on us.

    Try flying, driving, or crossing the border without ID. Try opening a bank account without presenting your government ID number (aka SSN). Try getting insurance, a credit card, a home loan, a car loan, a place to rent, and utilities for that place without presenting a SSN.

    Do you realize that we have a backdoor national ID card system right now? Legislation was passed to require an interlinking of driver's license record systems. Driver's licenses have to have biometric data encoded on them. A Supreme Court decision in the past few years means that you can't refuse to present them to law enforcement. Originally, this was portrayed as being intended to keep drunk drivers (especially commercial truck drivers) from just moving to another state to get a new license, but today it's being used by remote jurisdictions to enforce parking and speeding tickets with no means of appeal if the system has you wrong.

    We set up an unaccountable national database of people who are not allowed to fly that is based purely on names and aliases instead of more reliable data. Senators have been kept from flying because of the list.

    Police today can enter your home, plant listening devices, keystroke monitors, etc. and leave without letting you know and forbidding landlords from telling you about it. They can tap your phones if it's suspected that someone they might be interested in might use the phone (under their discretion). They can snatch records of what you read from the library, who you email and what sites you visit from your ISP, what potentially embarassing medical conditions you might have from your doctor, and any and all business transactions you make from your bank and credit card companies, and none of them can tell you under threat of criminal prosecution.

    Our government imprisoned people without trial and without access to laywers in violation of the 6th Amendment. Our government spies on citizens without a warrant in violation of the 4th Amendment. It tortures prisoners in violation of the Geneva Convention as well as the 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments, and there is a significant portion of the populace that approves of these actions since it makes them feel safer. It even prevents protesters from gathering outside of "Free Speech Zones" in front of the President in violation of the 1st Amendment, and people still aren't outraged.

    Let me tell you what Americans will do. NOT A DAMNED THING. All this government has to do is explain how it will protect us against terrorists, child molesters, Iranians, or whoever the hell we're supposed to be most scared of today, and so-called citizens will line up to be sheared like the good little sheep they are.

    If you think there is such a thing as public outrage at the loss of our rights, then you haven't been paying attention to in this post-9/11 world. Do you know what gets people angry? High gas prices, incompetent handling of a disaster, and the stink of failure in war. Civil rights doesn't even register as an issue thanks to the learned helplessness of the American people. Just shelter us from harm, and you can do anything with that guy's rights.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").