Chipped and Tracked

[SevenStarsHK2N]

If your government suggested a new law - where by all citizens were "chipped" at a young age - and also had bio metric data taken - would you be for or against such an action.

in the hypothetical situation - the chips would track your location - and your data would be stored on a secure government system - the police - with a warrant and good reason (issued by a judge) - could access the system to gain specific information of your location or the people present at a particular location at a specific time only.

the chip would also replace any need for paper I'd's - bank cards etc.

This is in the future - so the security on it is tight as a drum - hacking of sorts not an issue.

So - for or against -

and most interestingly - whats your reasons?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Against. Too much potential for the system to be abused for starters. You may have made rules concerning access, but all it will take is something like a terrorist attack for the people to go so sheepish as to allow a change in that rule.

Next, sometimes it is necessary to break the law, because sometimes the law and the power are wielded by the corrupt. Every rebel was a law breaker, but not all were bad, and thank goodness they did not have to contend with such a system as this! Paul Revere's ride would have been damn short!

Next, even when not trying to be corrupt, so many laws are just complete shite. I don't want the authorities to have enough power to enforce them all, not by a long shot. I think of things like the former prohibition on alcohol and the current one on marijuana. I think of things like the commie scare of the 1950s, something that landed even Burl Ives on a black list. Burl Ives!

I think of people like Frank Rodriguez, who is not allowed to take his own children to the park because their mother, his wife, was underage when they began having sex. The Age of Consent: When Young Love Is a Sex Crime - ABC News

Last but not least, so many of the people who become police are just complete A-holes in it for the power trip over people. Best not to give them too much power because they will SURELY abuse it one way or another. Think of the guy who pepper-sprayed those women who were just standing there during the Occupy protests. If you cannot trust so many beat cops with a can of pepper-spray, how can you trust one in a supervisory position with chips and tracking?

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

Against. Too much potential for the system to be abused for starters. You may have made rules concerning access, but all it will take is something like a terrorist attack for the people to go so sheepish as to allow a change in that rule.

A change of rule would not be necessary in this situation - for as soon as the terrorist committed his crime - he would also expose his entire network - Many surveillance laws that we have now (i.e. patriot act in USA) are so sweeping because it is the only way for law enforcement to actively track suspects.

If tracking a persons movements and thus who they interacted with no longer required shady espionage techniques - then laws regarding the use of surveilance could be a lot more specific - targeted - limited and most of all open.

Next, sometimes it is necessary to break the law, because sometimes the law and the power are wielded by the corrupt. Every rebel was a law breaker, but not all were bad, and thank goodness they did not have to contend with such a system as this! Paul Revere's ride would have been damn short!

surely we as a society want to move on from a place where un-elected rebels make decisions on behalf of the people - and yea - paul revere's ride would have been short - as he would have just tweeted #britisharecoming

Next, even when not trying to be corrupt, so many laws are just complete shite. I don't want the authorities to have enough power to enforce them all, not by a long shot. I think of things like the former prohibition on alcohol and the current one on marijuana. I think of things like the commie scare of the 1950s, something that landed even Burl Ives on a black list. Burl Ives!

The system would be limited to crimes against the person - violent crime would become a thing of the past - the chip could even monitor your vital signs and call you an ambulance if you are in need.

I think of people like Frank Rodriguez, who is not allowed to take his own children to the park because their mother, his wife, was underage when they began having sex. The Age of Consent: When Young Love Is a Sex Crime - ABC News

I don't see how having a tracking chip has anything to do with the age of consent

Last but not least, so many of the people who become police are just complete A-holes in it for the power trip over people. Best not to give them too much power because they will SURELY abuse it one way or another. Think of the guy who pepper-sprayed those women who were just standing there during the Occupy protests. If you cannot trust so many beat cops with a can of pepper-spray, how can you trust one in a supervisory position with chips and tracking?

With tracking chips crime rate - especially those against the person - would drop to near 0.
Thus fewer police would be needed.
So the police could be more choosy about who they hire - and with regards to police brutality - there would be no such thing as an anonymous police officer - If a cop pepper sprayed you with undue force - you would not even need to grab his badge number (which they often hide tho they shouldn't) - the police would suddenly be a lot more accountable.

With the ability to track citizens - you would actually be able to give the police LESS powers.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

A change of rule would not be necessary in this situation - for as soon as the terrorist committed his crime - he would also expose his entire network

You don't understand that today's terrorist is tomorrow's founding father. People and groups get mislabled as terrorists all the time.

If tracking a persons movements and thus who they interacted with no longer required shady espionage techniques

I am not sure what you mean by "shady". If you mean "corrupt", then shady practices were never required. Some people are real good at making excuses though.

If you mean undercover and at least temporarily secret for the course of an investigation, I don't see the problem. Having this tracking system wrapped in secrecy is just going to be the same thing by different means. How can we trust the secret keepers? How can we know for sure the secrets are kept if we don't know the secrets? Having everyone on a secret list...um...no way.

surely we as a society want to move on from a place where un-elected rebels make decisions on behalf of the people

Utopia is a nice dream. Better wake up to reality though. There are always going to be Saddam Husseins, Stalins, Hitlers and Pinochets in the world. There are always going to be people who love nothing but money and power and eventually one will fool enough people to get enough power to use such a system for genocide, targeted murder, etc.

The system would be limited to crimes against the person - violent crime would become a thing of the past

No. First time offenders would surely be caught. Then there would be a trial. Many would go to jail, but not all. Some would repeat their crimes. Such crimes may become fewer, but they would not disappear or even go near zero.

Making a nicer society by use of threats is a thing that can only go so far. There are plenty of nicer societies on Earth that did not require Big Brother.

As for needing an ambulance, I would rather take the risk of dying free than living tracked.

I don't see how having a tracking chip has anything to do with the age of consent

That was not the point. The point is that Frank may be taking his kids to the park anyway and I support the man 110 percent for doing it and many others like him.

But even if we discuss the AOC, there a violators getting away with it for not being tracked, and I support a lot of them (but only those not guilty of coercion, trickery, forcible rape etc.)

Thus fewer police would be needed.

Ah, but that does not mean there will actually be fewer police in reality.

If a cop pepper sprayed you with undue force - you would not even need to grab his badge number (which they often hide tho they shouldn't) - the police would suddenly be a lot more accountable.

I read of cases all the time where the cop is known, goes to trial, and gets off scot free. I don't think I have ever read a case of an unknown cop being sought for an action.

Anyway, perhaps you read the newspaper too much? Tracking chips might stop some horrible crimes for sure, but the world is really not that dangerous and really not so many serial killers and serial rapists etc out there.

And if you look at America, our jails are quite full, no tracking chips required.

In fact, the burgeoning prison population is proof of how America is f--ked up in a way that greater surveillance techniques will only make worse.

You ignored all those unjust laws you know. There are so many that I am so glad the police are powerless to crack down on.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

So long as I obey the law, government has no business tracking who, what, or where I am.

If you're talking about putting chips into criminals, then I'd be for it.

 

[BrianLewis]

Yeah, why not chip criminals. I don't see any reason to chip non-offenders. If you break the law you are already forfeiting your rights anyway. Chip them then.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I won't support chipping "criminals" either as once they have paid their debt to society, they deserve a second chance to be normal again.

What is really scary is that you two who support this are so vague about who the criminals are. Could be just about anybody who ever wound up in the justice system.

There are good words like "convicted felons" "released felons", stuff like that would be very clear. But you guys don't bother with clarity and instead paint whole groups of people with the same brush.

No I don't think we need to track pot smokers who got busted or tax evaders or those who failed to pay a bunch of parking tickets.

And once this genie is out of the bottle its going to be damned hard to put back in.

By the way, is Wesley Snipes out of jail yet? Never should have been there in the first place and no, I don't want to chip him.

 

[Hezam]

I'm all against it, only dictators would have such bad ideas in their minds, Like Khamenei and Kim Jong il.
I'm against chipping people, criminals or not unless the criminals in jails not the ones who paid their debt.

 

[AquaLung]

This chipping is a reality in the works. The good news is that it's understood at least at this point, that there's a freedom of choice/rights issue involved. It's not something that can be put into law right away. The bad news is that attempts are being made to move it into mass acceptance. For instance they had been talking about using it to control illegal immigration.

As one can see, I'm against it. When it appears to become a good idea (using scenarios like controlling terrorism, illegal immigration, etc.), that's when those of us against it will need to take a strong stance. As it stands now, it's sort of an undercover issue.

 

[BrianLewis]

The public in general is already chipped. Why would we exclude criminals, when they are the ones we would most like to track?

 

[AquaLung]

The public in general is already chipped. Why would we exclude criminals, when they are the ones we would most like to track?

When referring to personal/human implantation, and it's relation to criminals, the problem is; who is to say what exactly is a criminal at any given time? The definition of criminal has varied over geography and time. One can be considered a criminal by just being in disagreement. There's no human that's guaranteed non-criminal status. So a just person accused of a state crime on the run, has a better chance of finding sanctuary if they are not implanted.

 

[BrianLewis]

Well, you can probably find your criteria if you look into what is required for a warrant to access the GPS records on a person's cell phone.

 

[Tamayo]

I could never agree to this sort of thing unless there were extreme circumstances that called for it. As Zorro said, there's far too high of a risk of someone abusing it. Beyond that, I really just don't see the point. If I was approached and offered a magic chip that could act as a Swiss army knife of credit cards, IDs, licenses, etc, I wouldn't want it, and for that reason alone I can't imagine why anyone would have much of a want for it in the future.

I would not be opposed to having criminals chipped, but only for serious crimes like being a child molester, rapist, murderer, terrorist, etc. I think that our country is far too soft on people when they break laws, both serious and trivial. If this sort of technology were ever to have big enough advantages, then I'd gladly vote to have dangerous criminals chipped.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Well, you can probably find your criteria if you look into what is required for a warrant to access the GPS records on a person's cell phone.

Cell phone companies should be legally required to offer phones without GPS.

I am not sure how effective turning the phone off is, but two layers of tin foil will put your phone in stealth mode.

My GD driver's license has a chip. First one I got I took it home and smacked with a hammer. OOPS! But when I changed my address they demanded a get a new DL and pay about 5000 yen. I just said no. But of course when it expired I got a new card and new chip and in the future I may not be able to refuse to replace a broken chip. So my DL is in tin foil in my wallet now. Not that I think I could be tracked by satellite, but I believe such a chip can be read from a few feet away, and track you as pass through doors if the right equipment gets installed.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

The fact that it requires us to draw a line doesn't make it insurmountable. Laws do that all the time. Here's one possibility:

If you're arrested for a serious crime (felony) or violent misdemeanor, you get chipped. If you're out on bail, the chip stays in.

If you're acquitted, the chip comes out. If convicted, it stays in until x number of years after you've served your sentence or the period of your suspended sentence. If you stay out of legal trouble for the period of time, you may petition to have the chip removed. A similar process is used now to restore the civil rights of felons (right to vote, serve on juries, own guns, etc.) that are lost under current laws.

If you're a three-time loser, the chip stays in the rest of your life.

That's just one possibility. I don't care if anyone tinkers with the particulars. The point is, these lines can be drawn. The lines will never give perfect justice in all situations, but no laws have ever done that.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I know where you are coming from Roland, but I just don't think its worth the risk. There is not near enough benefit IMHO to justify the risk.

I see far too much injustice coming from the justice system to go and hand them all that new power. Maybe when there are no more Frank Rodriquezes and we can all legally smoke pot etc. I might consider it. But what I see now is a bunch unnecessary infringments on our rights with laws based on nothing more than the determination of lobbyists and interest groups and so-called "moralists" who are some of the scummiest people on the planet. Not only this, but I balk at any suggestions to give them more power.

 

[BrianLewis]

It's funny how paranoid people can get about such a silly thing. I, for one, know that the government has better things to do than pick on a law abiding citizen. How egocentric can you get if you think that the government is just gonna come get you, given the opportunity. That's paranoia.

People pull their cars over when sirens are heard, I don't see why we can't be chipped so that dangerous criminals could be captured quicker. Both are a minor inconvenience for the greater good of society. Repeat offenders and kidnappers would be virtually non existent. That would be far more constructive than some delusion of crumbling ethics in local government.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

It's funny how paranoid people can get about such a silly thing. I, for one, know that the government has better things to do than pick on a law abiding citizen.

Maybe more of us than you think are NOT law abiding citizens? Further, even our legal actions can harm our reputations and finances. Here in Japan, an extramarital affair will kill you in a divorce. I don't want to be tracked to a love hotel, and it could come up in an investigation of something else.

Second, the American Revolutionary War may have been 250 years ago, the American Civil war 150, but its a damn fool who thinks something like that cannot happen again. It seems to me that you like to pretend there was no Hitler or could never be again. Macrobiotic already pointed that out basically. Its not that we are paranoid. Its that you are too confident in the future.

I think I can prove my own lack of paranoia by my constant complaints about new laws on terrorism and flying regulations and all the shoe removing and body scans and crap. I am not paranoid. I am just mindful of the past and the fact that it repeats itself. If anyone is paranoid, its people constantly worried about "the criminals" and "the terrorists". When was the last time you experienced some crime or terrorism in any form...seriously.

I have been robbed at gunpoint but I am not of a mind that we need tracking to save my skin.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

Ok so a lot of people seem to be against chipping for the reasons that the government should not be able to just up and track law abiding citizens.

Ok so bad news: They already can - and they already do:

Yes you can go "off Grid" - but not for very long - at massive personal cost to yourself - and it will work for as long as your are not being seriously looked for. So we are already tracked - but because the government cannot track us directly - they have to use other techniques to track you.

For example - would you still be against chipping and tracking if it meant that Echelon was shut down and the use of TEMPEST and TEMPEST like technologies were made illegal against citizens?

(for those that do not know : Echelon is the vast computer network run by multiple countries, primarily based in the states that listens in and scans every single piece of electronic communications - it sounds Hollywood - it is real.

In films they say - don't call anyone you know - if you want to go off grid - nope try again - don't use a phone EVER - or skype.

TEMPEST is a completely passive way to see what you are doing on your computer - that bypasses all encryption - and can be operated from as far away as a plane - the technology has been developed and enhanced since it's inception - and is now able to read your hardrive from hundreds of meters away - without making any contact with your computer

It is possible to shield your computer from Tempest - but in some countries - the USA being one of them - doing so is actually illigal - yes if you protect your computer from having any tom dick and harry see whats on it (because you need no kind of warrant to use Tempest as it's completely passive) - you are committing a federal offence )

so why is this different from just plain up having a chip? -

another concern people seem to have is: that it's all hidden and shady

the reason why espionage techniques are hidden and shady - are because many of them - do not work if you know they are happening - and even after the event - you can't let on how you found out.

with chipping - we all know how it works - so there is no need to be shady about it.

we currently live in a world where it is ok for the state to spy on our thoughts - we deem this as acceptable because - well there are bad people.

but if we are able to track peoples physical presence - then the need to police peoples thoughts subsides.

there would be more freedom - not less.

more anonymity - not less

Citizens are already tracked - currently:

without warrant - without much oversight - and certainly no public oversight.
this tracking is also expensive and limited in terms of numbers of people who can be fully tracked at a time (especially those who know how to make it harder).

So why is chipping bad?
If it's only used in after the fact crimes - whats the issue?

really don't understand why you are all so against it

 

[Tamayo]

At the end of the day, I see no reason to be paranoid about the government having access to our personal life. The only reason I object to having a chip implanted is because it's physically invasive. Otherwise, I see no problem with it.

For starters, I have absolutely nothing to hide (from the government, at least). If you have any reason to hide specifically from the government, then I can say that I'm glad that our government is "invasive". On top of that, ask yourself what they'll do with what they find?

The government has absolutely no reason to to personally look into what you've been doing unless they have a real reason to. Even with our entire lives documented on a spreadsheet, we retain anonymity in numbers. It's similar to the way that college teachers post student's grades publicly in the hallways using students' ID numbers. If any of you think that the government wants to "catch" you buying sex toys, or cheating on your wife, or doing some sort of scandalous thing, you're sorely mistaken. Not only could the government not care less about you if you haven't done something to gain their attention, people like you and I are a dime a dozen.

I don't care if the government listens to my phone calls, reads my e-mails, watches my bank activity, can track me via the GPS in my phone/tablet/laptop or has access to my face on a live video feed from a satellite 24/7. I WOULD mind having a chip physically implanted on my person because 1. they already have plenty of ways to monitor my behavior and 2. being physically invasive is just a bit too far.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

7stars and Tamayo, you both seem to be lacking both foresight AND hindsight on this issue. One day the crap is going to hit the fan, just like it has so many times in history, and if you are not chipped you will be glad, and if you are chipped you will be depressed. Or it will happen to your kids. Or theirs.

 

[Tamayo]

7stars and Tamayo, you both seem to be lacking both foresight AND hindsight on this issue. One day the crap is going to hit the fan, just like it has so many times in history, and if you are not chipped you will be glad, and if you are chipped you will be depressed. Or it will happen to your kids. Or theirs.

I have never seen, heard or thought of a way that the government would 1. care about my personal life unless it directly breaks some law or makes me liable for something, 2. lawfully use any of my personal life to negatively influence my personal or financial/political life or 3. convince people that they should have chips implanted for the sake of the government, and not for themselves.

I already said that even the mere mention of chip implants by the government would be crossing the line, and that I'd never be okay with it. With that in mind, I don't see how my point of view is dangerous. I'm fully aware of the fact that I only understand the very tip of the iceberg here, but what do you really think they could, or would do? Technically, my opinion here is actually off-topic -- I'm just saying that I don't get why people are so paranoid about an anonymous entity having access (not ACTIVELY ACCESSING, having access) to their personal life when they themselves are anonymous within the system.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

What race and religion are you Tamayo?

If the Nazis had access to this tech there would not have been a Jew alive in Central Europe. And they are hardly the only genocidal group in history.

 

[Tamayo]

What race and religion are you Tamayo?

If the Nazis had access to this tech there would not have been a Jew alive in Central Europe. And they are hardly the only genocidal group in history.

Well, the original question was aimed toward our own governments. Of course I would want as little to do with a communist government as possible. I suppose I should have been a bit more specific, but I was referring to America in my posts here.

 

[alecgraham]

Against.
It has always seemed to me to be one of those technologies that, if not immediately abused, will eventually be abused.