Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
I really think it is for medical reasons only.
Wait, there is no definition on what these chips are doing. You can't just ask if human chip implants are a good idea. Are they tracking devices to help save kidnapped children? or are they microphones the government will use to track how many times I say bomb in an airplane? Do they log and transmit important medical information helping me to predict and lessen a heart attack? Or are they systematically removing sections of my memory regarding an ex-girlfriend I nor longer wish to remember.
Sure they are a great idea…. unless they are a bad idea…. this is only half of an important question.
NO . . . and not only no but absolutely no!
You got to stop and think about all this in teerms of our Bill of Rights – specifically our right to privacy!
Start putting "chips" into people and we stop being individuals and start being just another number.
Just my not-so-humble opinion. B)
But papadawg, no one has even defined what this chip is doing. What if they've developed a chip which emits a magnetic radiation that inhibits cancer growth in all humans? Just a devil's advocate here.
No, I don’t care what they ‘say’ it’s supposed to do, it may inhibit cancer but it’s invading my privacy, whether they say it or not they have a chip in my body that they can do whatever they want with. I would rather take my chance with dieing of cancer and living life on my terms, than possibly dieing from cancer. Maybe I’m just narrow minded but I like my life as it is, why is a chip neccessary?
Magnetic radiation inhibiting cancer growth?
Are you serious?
I don't care what the justification may be, once you insert a chip you are no longer a person because you have lost your privacy. If you know anything about electronic programming then you know that a small chip can hold up to four gigabytes of info or instructions. Sorry pard, I disagree.
Obviously I'm not serious about what it would do papadawg. But my point is this debate is only half a question. I know as well as you magnetic radiation isn't inhibiting cancer but I'm using it as a what-if scenario. I assume though that it wouldn't change your mind regarding your desire to not have it in you.
Oh yeah I'm well aware of the storage size of microchips. I work with them and their shifty programmers every single monday-friday.
BUT if there was some amazing medical advancement in microchip form, I think I might very well go for it.
They can be used for a variety of reasons. There's always going to be drawbacks in every situation.
This is because of the baby-boomers are afraid of change since they didn't grow up around technology like we are. Those chips can do good, especially for medical reasons.
Yea well they say 25% of us are going to get it sometime in our life so I really don't think we have that much to lose.
Psssst, Jared . . . it was OUR generation that INVENTED the microchip!
Our generation also invented the Internet . . . NOT Al "Huggatree" Gore!
Our generation also invented the PC.
Nope, we didn't grow up around technology like you are . . . WE INVENTED EVERY SINGLE BIT OF IT!
Sheesh! Ya just gotta stop drinking the Kool-Aide, there, kid! :S o.0
Uh, Jared, who is "THEY"?
I don't want to split hairs and all, BUT although your generation invented the microchip, it NEVER EVER would have existed without the solid-state transistor. The work oh Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley (haha) in 1947, the earlier generation paved the way for everything that came after. So while I agree that your generation built the PC, and laid the groundwork on the internet, none of that technology would exist without the efforts of what we now call: "The Greatest Generation"
The PC, is merely an application of transistors (in the millions) all working in tandem! It's truly amazing if you really know how they work!
I would support a GPS enabled tracking chip implanted in repeat sex offenders and career criminals. They would forfeit their privacy rights by choosing a life of crime.
Its a GOOD. Idea im a teenager and im CONSTANTLY in fear of being kidnapped
And not to mention that i have medical problems that drs NEED to know about and if im unconcious they will never know
If my safety and my health/life is my reward for being just another number so be it my name will be 12341234
OK this is the thing about this inplant it is called the mark of the beast if u take it not only will u losse ur feedom u will lose ur salvation in revolations it states that if u take the mark of the beast in the right hand or forhead this is the meaning of u denieing GOD i pray that all the people that blog on this subject what this is all about its not for or safty plz listen
As far as I am concerned, artificial devices have no place in the human body. They cause cancer and damage surrounding tissue and nerve endings. It would not be a consideration if these researchers were held accountable for the damage they do to humans and animals. It is time to put legislation in place to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The funding that goes into these projects could be used for more humanitarian purposes.
I think they would be a great idea. If someone turns into a serial killer then police would be able to track them. These chips could hold our lifes story, tell us who we are if we had amnesia (if by chance they didnt have any I.D on them), or if someone is murdered then investigators could tell who they were by checking the chip. But they shouldnt use it to see what people are doing 24-7!
"But they shouldnt use it to see what people are doing 24-7! "
Why wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't they? Just because government and its agents are not supposed to use a particular power that we have foolishly granted them does not mean that they will not on the count that we do not wish them to do so only when it inconveniences us (and not when it conveniences our ridiculous demands for public order or safety).
Well Americans have the right to privacy so the government would be breaking their own law by checking up on us every now and then.
Consider how many times the PATRIOT act was (and still is) used for purposes other than counter-terrorism (at least several thousand… that we know of). And now consider how many times the government, or its agencies and agents, have been held accountable for violating its own laws, or violating the rights of citizens (that would be… near to zero). Even at a local level, it is not implausible for the police to routinely violate the rights of citizens while conducting drug raids, or simply when randomly stopping people in impoverished neighbourhoods. This is not to say that all or even many cops are corrupt, but certainly plenty of them see these as legitimate activities to blatantly infringe on civilians and their daily lives without proper justification and cause.
So I ask you again…. what's to stop them from doing so?
The right to privacy is not a part of the Constitution, at least not in so many words. The right to privacy would best be seen in the 9th Amendment, which basically says that just because a right is not in the Constitution, does not necessarily mean that it does not exist. The justices of the Supreme Court, in several cases over the past half century, have found that a right to privacy does exist in the Constitution, to a degree. The cases that started the process of the "finding" of this new right began with cases like Loving v Virginia, where it was ruled that the state cannot prevent mixed-race marriages; and like Griswold v Connecticut, where it was ruled that a state cannot prevent a married couple from buying and using condoms. The first mention of a right to privacy was in a dissenting opinion in Olmstead v US in 1928, in which Justice Brandeis argued that the Framers had created a framework for the greatest right of all: "the right to be left alone."
So Americans DO have the right to privacy.
Fair enough, but we also don't have explicit protections that authoritarians may ignore at their peril.
We often hold no one responsible for violations of privacy and even explicit Constitutional rights of disfavored peoples (minorities, religious or ethnic, or criminals engaging in private consensual actions such as the distribution of narcotics and other vice crimes). By tacitly accepting these violations, we risk our own. Your initial statement implies that these devices should be implanted in anyone, and then if they turn out to be a serial killer for example, then and only then should they be used by the government to track them down and arrest them. My problem with this is that while it might be okay to use such a device (as we do with house arrest tracking bracelets) on released convicts or other probationary states of people who have been convicted of a criminal act, this is very different from using such a device to intrude on people suspected of a crime or who are simply considered undesirable by the broader society (criminal profiling wouldn't be that hard to do herein).
A second problem is that once the state and its various agents and agencies has the arbitrary ability to monitor people they will use it regardless of what ends you or I happen to approve of its ability to do so. It is possible to use such legal protections as warrants to safeguard privacy, but providing the state with the technical ability to do something will imply that it will want as few obstacles to exercising that power as possible. This is an acceptable risk to individual freedom. If the cost is a few people die or are accosted by criminal actors, so be it.
We are better off not having the state decide what criminal actions it can investigate us at random for, and it already possesses broad legal codes and interpretations therein to do so without having the ability to peer into our daily lives at a whim. I'd rather not give them the whim too. We already lack explicit legal interpretations and expectations of privacy for many of our internet communications and other modern technological actions, and the government at present is more than willing to exploit this lack of clarity (while demanding it for itself, as in the case of Wikileaks or police and other officials being recorded by private citizens).
You may wish to hold such reprehensible action accountable for this disparity, but it is not the legal regime we have at present. The legal regime we have now acts from a presumption that legal rights which are not enumerated are not protected and this puts privacy at jeopardy except in explicitly protected ways (search warrants and free speech).
Well, Americans dont want a cerial killer running loose so why not use the chips on them? They already commited a crime so why let them go free? I would want them to be checked on every now and then just to make shure they arent doing anything wrong.
This is the same stupid argument people use on child predators versus "sexual offenders". If someone is legitimately that dangerous, don't let them back out of prison in the first place once they are caught and convicted. It's not necessary to monitor their every move and control where they may live and deny them basic rights and so on because they're already in a hole somewhere that we put them in.
If they're not that dangerous, then it should not be necessary to keep tabs on their every move, or at least not necessary in a permanent fashion. Most criminal offenses are trivial, minor, and committed by people who mature and age. What you're left with is a very small number of criminals who commit a lot of crime and do some of the really nasty bits who would need to be detained and monitored.
But that's what prisons are for. That system is sufficient without infringing on the regular civilian population.
I believe all people should have certain right's and freedom's given to us by creation whatever that may be and the Constitution conferees part of these , but people who would willingly deprive other's of these freedom's in a hateful manner regardless of what illegality or misdeed they have committed are no different than the individuals who have stripped other's of there birthright's through crime or any other anti-social behavior in my opinion . It is true there should be some type of action taken to try and prevent crime, but there still needs to be a certain kind of principle the Authority must follow to not violate a human being's right's. I believe human implantable chip's are inhumane in all but a few application's where the owner openly gives consent and this should not become standardized. There is a specific cause and effect involved with everything in this world and this to an extent effect's the outcomes of everyone's lives, no one person is better than another we are all created equal, just different experience's and genetics's . When you protect the right's of the accused , you protect your own right's at the same time.