FDA approves "The Chip", a step to the future, or to The End?

[Storyteller01]

I think Gable has a good point there. Americans are panicy paranoid authority-spiting creatures, and this sort of thing will happen over our dead bodies. Literally.

I can see it as being an optional "Fast-Pass" of the medical/financial world. They stick the chip in their arm and get by faster, while us other folk have to sit there and fill out paperwork.

But if it's made to seem easy to use, and more convenient, wouldn't that take the fight out of most americans?

Kind of like carrying a check card vs cash. Just easier to use in more...how do I say this...econmically enriched areas??

Just debating on the side of paranoid. ID theft is easy enough as it is...

 

[Raging Epistaxis]

But if it's made to seem easy to use, and more convenient, wouldn't that take the fight out of most americans?

Yup, I believe it would. :\

Kind of like carrying a check card vs cash. ... ID theft is easy enough as it is...

I would hope that the financial side of these chips is set up more like a debit card where there is a secondary form of confirmation required, like a PIN, etc. Not that it makes theft that much harder, but at least a thief would had to have watched you for a while to learn your PIN before jacking your chip.

Perhaps in combination with some other less stealable form of ID - retinal scan? Fingerprint? Might make it a bit more secure.

 

[Henry]

How about on the forehead? If you loose the head there aint no fixin the rest of you. Civilians could put it on the right hand for easy scanning...

Stop it, Aaron.

 

[ForceUser]

No one is putting anything electronic inside my body, no matter how convenient. Period.

 

[Dakkareth]

The problem is the convenience. Remember all these Payback-, Club-, Discount-Cards, etc? The actual benefits of having one are marginal, but still lots of people use them. They only have a number on them either, but with a electronic cashing system the corporations' large databases get filled quick. The data trail I leave on the internet is bad enough (give a P.I. one week with google and he can create a psychogramm and case file of me without even having seen me), but if RL data about movement patterns, buying habits, etc is accumulated in the same way, then 1984 is indeed near.

It's a vicious circle - customers want ease of use, so they, we will agree with perceivedly small risks. As result the corporations get more data to play with and go one step further - you *need* one of these tracking mechanisms to be allowed to buy/sell/whatever. It can all be reasoned away quite nicely and within a few years it will be a commonplace.

Now one might say 'so what, there will still be only a lot of separate databases, applicable only to the field of the company using it' and indeed, if it were so the risks would be considerably smaller. But centralization and fusions abound. For example here in Germany there are two or three gigantic groups owning 90% of all chains of super markets, etc. Worried already?

Now taking this one step further, many goverments are still implementing additional 'security measures' against terrorism, which may or may not be effective. These are mostly laws to force the further centralization of databases in the name of 'pattern recognition to find terrorists'. This might indeed be the aim in some (most, for the optimists) cases, but in reality it creates a structure, that can easily be abused for much less noble aims. And what is there to use WILL be used.

 

[Pielorinho]

Yesterday while I was down at our animal shelter discussing a new database report with our vet, a dog who'd just been adopted came to the vet room to get its microchip.

Took about fifteen seconds. When it was over, the dog got scanned twice to make sure the chip showed up on the hand scanner; each scan took about three to five seconds, as the scanner was rubbed over the dog's back.

This is not an insidious technology, any more than medical bracelets are an insidious technology. I'm not getting a microchip, but then, I don't have a really risky medical problem. I've wondered for awhile why they weren't available for humans who could benefit from them.

The religious discussions need to stop now.

Daniel

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

...Scared yet?

Nope. And, not to be a jerk, but a lot of people are jumping at shadows here. Besides, no individual person is worth the level of governmental and commercial manipulation that's being suggested, not so long as it's so easy to get groups to stampede in a given direction.

 

[Storyteller01]

Nope. And, not to be a jerk, but a lot of people are jumping at shadows here. Besides, no individual person is worth the level of governmental and commercial manipulation that's being suggested, not so long as it's so easy to get groups to stampede in a given direction.

The problem is not in manipulation, per say, but with what can be used. As a former member of the military my DNA is on file. Last thing I need is someone switching names on my file, just to spend years removing a criminal record I never had. Not only that, but this tech can be used to find and exploit behavioral trends (less chance that said stampede-making will backfire)

Also, SHOULD there be a need for the manipulation of one singular individual, the info is available at a moments notice (rather than using extensive investigation). As it stands, I can get a credit report on just about anyone here, with $50 and access to a Private Investigative website...

 

[reveal]

If the human versions work the same as the non-human (veterinary) chips, all the scanner reads is the number.

The number in and of itself means nothing without access to a database that matches the number with whatever info is stored in the database. In the case of pets, that is the info sent in by the owners themselves when they register the chip.

Let's say I pass you in the hall and "accidentally" bump into you. I get your number. True, it does me no good. But how long until someone reverse engineers the chip and learns how to input numbers into it? Then I input your number in it and, suddenly, money's disappearing out of your bank account because you made three withdrawal's today.

I know that people can use SSNs to access private info, rent a house, etc. but having a chip that constantly broadcasts your ID, regardless of how powerful that transmission is, is scary because it's private info that I am not willing to let anyone with a handheld scanner have access to.

 

[Storyteller01]

The problem is not in manipulation, per say, but with what can be used. As a former member of the military my DNA is on file. Last thing I need is someone switching names on my file, just to spend years removing a criminal record I never had. Not only that, but this tech can be used to find and exploit behavioral trends (less chance that said stampede-making will backfire)

Also, SHOULD there be a need for the manipulation of one singular individual, the info is available at a moments notice (rather than using extensive investigation).

besides, I'm less concerned about government/corporate control as I am about average people with more brains than sense.

The school I go to has had to resort to purchasing thumb drives for students who have some major dealing with computers (which has translated to an increase in my school loan). They used to have file space for saving work on-site, until some students began hacking the system. Work was either erased or irretrievably altered.

What do we do if one of these people (term used loosely) gets a hold of a chip scanner, or learns how to make one (anyone here can make a card reader, and some back alley publishers will sell you the plans for $10 to $15.)