Prediction 106
By 2025 at least 50% of all U.S. citizens residing within the United States will have some form of technology embedded in their bodies for the purpose of tracking and identification
Prediction 106
Duration 22 years (02003-02025)
Predictor
Douglas C. Hewes
Challenger
TBA
Add your voice to a conversation with the bettors:
Bookmark this bet, and share it with friends:
Technology is a wonderful thing. So is Freedom. In many circumstances these are mutually exclusive concepts. Ironically many advances have been made in the name of freedom. Cryptography, wireless networking, miniaturization of IC?s, biotechnologies, perpetuating energy sources, global positioning systems, information storage and retrieval systems ? all developed to some extent in an effort to afford us greater freedoms through the application of technology. These same technologies however, will one day erode that very freedom.
Despite our outward social and technological advancements, even evolutions, we are still driven by the eon old concepts of survival and protection. This is, as it has always been and always will be, human nature. Combine these driving forces with technology and a revenue-driven industrial complex ? mix with a healthy dose of fear (both real and manufactured) and a bleaker reality emerges.
It began with systems such as LoJack, a vehicle recovery system. As technology improved, smaller tracking devices began to be implanted in pets. In 2000, Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. formed a partnership with Princeton University and the New Jersey Institute of Technology to design a miniature, implantable digital transceiver that can send and receive data, monitor body functions, store information and utilize GPS tracking. Within a decade or so a device small enough and efficient enough to be permanently implanted in the human body that provides this functionality will be on the market. The technology exists ? all that remains is to overcome logic, social responsibility, ethics and common sense.
Fear. Fear is a highly motivating emotion. Societies will perform virtually unthinkable acts out of fear. It will begin with people electing to have others implanted. Parents, afraid for the safety of their children, will have them implanted with these devices in case of abduction (or more evil motives during those teen years). The elderly will find themselves implanted in case of accidents, cardiac arrest or Alzheimer's disease. These are the cases where our humanity allows us to alleviate some of our fears through the use of technology ? for purely ethical and good-hearted reasons. Then it will begin in earnest: the involuntary implantations. Technology will have to evolve to a device that can not be tampered with or removed. Congress, through the use of an effective fear campaign, will have to enact legislation. The military will then be early adopters, under the pretense of body identification; locating MIA/POW?s and troop tracking/performance monitoring (Adds a whole new twist to SNMP, huh?). It will be the military applications, due both to enormous funding and the perpetual utilitarian need to incorporate as many functions into a single device as possible that will drive the advancement and universal adoption of these technologies. At this point convicted criminals will almost certainly find themselves with such implants. Ethnic profiling and a fear of terrorism will also lead to a number of mandatory implants. The final stage of this assault on freedom will culminate with what today would sound incredulous ? voluntarily implanting oneself. People will implant themselves in case of a natural disaster, severe accident or even in case of finding themselves lost on the Appalachian Trail?does it really matter? The commonality throughout these stages ? the driving force ? is fear.
From here it is simply a chronological issue ? how long will it take for 50% of the population of the United States to receive these implants?
Technology is a wonderful thing. So is Freedom.
Douglas C. Hewes is negotiating the terms of a bet about this prediction. It will soon be added to Bets on the Record.
By 2025 at least 50% of all U.S. citizens residing within the United States will have some form of technology embedded in their bodies for the purpose of tracking and identification
It seems not entirely unlikely to me that by 2025 US citizens will not need embedded technology to facilitate tracking and identification.
I'm not describing what is necessarily a "Big Brother" scenario. It may simply be that a substantial leap forward in both computing and either farsensing or ubiquitous awareness technology will lead to a condition where at least 50% of US citizens can positively be tracked and identified -- by someone, at least -- without the need for any embedded anything.
Mark.
While your views do sound fascinating, I would have to say that they belong more in the realm of the fantastical. In order to positively track someone without any form of implant one of the following techniques would have to reach maturation:
1) Remote Viewing or other ESP based phenomenon: While I believe that humanity has the potential to some day develop these abilities, I feel that this level of evolution is considerably further then 25 years out.
2) Quantum Entanglement or related technology: Again, the base research is here today, and perhaps someday we will reach a point where we can identify matching particles and instantly locate, communicate or even transport such particles. Unfortunately this is much further then 25 years out.
3) Brain Wave Fingerprinting & Sensing: Is it possible we have some unique electromagnetic fingerprint? Sure. Is it possible that someday technology may exist to track this, in particular across great distances? Sure. Is it likely to happen in my lifetime? Doubtful.
I am not stating that your comments are unlikely, but rather that your timeframe is unrealistic. My prediction is based on existing technology already in use and already slowing becoming mainstream and accepted. With the implantation of technology for tracking, there are very few technical issues left to surmount. We are primarily dealing with a social, ethical and political issue.
I guess I needed to give more details. The situation I imagined does not require magical technologies of any kind. It just requires more computing power and more cameras.
Surveillance is becoming more and more nearly omnipresent in public spaces of technologically advanced countries. In some metropolitan areas in the UK, frex, a majority of public areas are monitored by cameras.
Moreover, systems already exist -- albeit in relatively primitive states -- that allow automated systems to recognize, watch for, and maintain surveillance of particular individuals. Even further, some systems can already distinguish fairly well between legal and illegal activities and know to summon the attention of a human monitor if illegal activity is suspected.
Combining this with the decreasing size and cost, and increasing sophistication, of surveillance and computer technology, I find it easy to imagine a near-future in which you can't go anywhere in public without being on camera and being watched by a computer system. Naturally, this would not apply everywhere, but might start in Manhattan, or Tokyo, or Taipei, or Hong Kong, or London.
Then it would spread. A lot of privacy experts are already talking about ubiquitous surveillance as if it were a present reality. I don't think it's inevitable, but I do think it's possible.
I was at a networking event in Silicon Valley last week. The idea of the evening was inovation during a down economy. I met an interesting gentleman who had worked on the technology used in the ankle bracelet people on house arrest or parole often wear. He had the idea to put tracking devices on salesman at conventions. The name badges would have the device. The home office could know in real time who they talked to for how long and where they were. The product was for managing contacts if you talked to someone for ten min or ten seconds you could do better follow up in a perfect world. I didn't think the world was ready for employers to be able to know every move you made down to the second. I thought that this would not increase productivity but raise a privacy issue. The ability to implant these tiny tracking devices is not far from real. I just do not believe that people will allow themselves to be watched that closely.
What fun is a convention if your boss knows where you are?
The old IBM PAN concept (Personal Area Network) included a very similar idea in a different technology, in which PAN users would wear a very small, very simple computer device roughly the size of a pack of cards.
The PAN device would largely function as a Palm Pilot sort of accessory to a laptop computer. The PAN network itself was conducted not by transmission or cables but by a very slight electric field that ran over the outside of the user's body.
This sounds very bizarre, but some of the proposed applications weren't bad. For instance, two people with PAN systems could automatically exchange business card information simply by shaking hands. (Or could elect not to, since user options would be configurable just as you'd imagine.)
And PAN users could be tracked via radio equipment, within a short range (inside a building, frex). A proposed benefit, way back when, was that calls could automatically be forwarded to them no matter where they were.
The PAN might also track when you started talking to an associate, what data was electronically transferred, and so on. When you started using your laptop computer, the information would all be automatically downloaded to the laptop. No muss, no fuss.
As far as I know, the PAN concept was pretty much defunct years ago, gone the way of bookshelf computers and Java rings, but tech concepts often reappear.
This is already a reality, the VA medical health system's have a device that is implanted if you have a pace maker, or any device implanted to help control any function of the body, it send's your vital information to a computer on which a Dr or YOU can access and it give's all your information on how well your body fucntion's are doing and
they can adjust your medicine to help you right then. It's the same size as a small pace maker and transmit's your info to a central location and then it goes to the facility you use or you can access it via computer. So his
agrument is a reality now let alone the future and if you read the Homeland Security act an indentifier is in the works for all of us to be tagged.
Brave new world foresaw this trend long ago, but it began earlier; more or less the time of the invention of politics.
Any and all technology capable of being missused in the name of repression will be.
Forty-one percent of Americans polled in 1996 stated that they were "absolutely committed" to Christianity. (see http://www.adherents.com/Na_168.html#951)
Among these people there would definitely arise a debate concerning embedded technology as it relates to prophetic writings in the Bible. (Revelation 13:16-17, "And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.")
Assuming the large majority of the 41 percent of fundamentalist Christians interpreted the prophecy to be a warning against embedded technology, we can assume they would refuse it.
At most, that leaves only 59 percent of the population, among whom I'm sure a lively debate would ensue concerning the necessity and related safety issues.
Would the necessary 15 percent of the non-fundamentalist-Christian population (i.e., nine percent of the total population) side with the fundies and refuse such a development?
Who knows? A more important question is, what practical use would a tracking and identification system have that only accounted for 50 percent of the population?
A 50 percent coverage scenario only makes sense if it is both voluntary, and at the same time necessary for membership in an organizaton. For example, American Airlines might make it a requirment that all employees be identifiable upon arrival at work.
The driving force for such a change would be prevention of international terrorism. Even if such changes were made for good reasons, we can be sure that once the embedding of technology became a requirement at a public institution, there would be court cases which last for many, many years. In addition, there would be several years needed to implement the changes along the way.
In order for the court cases and preliminary infrastructure to be put in place to embed and track devices in half the population, the issue would need to arise within the next 5-10 years.
But again, assuming it did so, you can be sure that the fundamentalist Christian voting base would cause an uproar. This is something that they would never accept, and would in fact fight to the death over.
All that being said, I think that the only way 50 percent of the population would go along with this is if there were a sea change in religious affiliation in this country due to war, catastrophe or misinformation.
Is that likely to happen? It's possible.
New service in Japan for GPS location of pets in case they get lost. It's an external device, a bit smaller than a mobile phone.
http://www.fnn-news.com/headlines/CONN00034344.html
–ÀŽqƒyƒbƒg‚̋ꊂðGPS‚Å’m‚点‚éVƒT[ƒrƒX‚ðŒx”õ‰ïŽÐƒZƒRƒ€‚ªŠJŽn
===
Œ»ÝA“ú–{‚Ńyƒbƒg‚Æ‚µ‚ÄŽ”‚í‚ê‚Ä‚¢‚éƒCƒk‚âƒlƒR‚Í1,700–œ•C‚Æ‚¢‚í‚ê‚Ä‚¢‚邪A‰Æ‘°‚̈êˆõ‚Æ‚à‚¢‚¦‚éƒyƒbƒg‚ª–ÀŽq‚É‚È‚Á‚½Žž‚ɖ𗧂ƒVƒXƒeƒ€‚ª“oꂵ‚½B
Œx”õ‰ïŽÐuƒZƒRƒ€v‚ªV‚½‚ÉŽn‚ß‚½‚Ì‚ªA–ÀŽq‚̃yƒbƒg‚̋ꊂð’m‚点‚éƒT[ƒrƒXB
‚±‚ê‚Ü‚ÅGPS(‰q¯—˜—p‘ªˆÊƒVƒXƒeƒ€)‚Ì’ÊM’[––‚ðŽg‚Á‚ÄŽÔ‚â‹àŒÉ‚̈ʒu‚ð’m‚点‚éƒT[ƒrƒX‚ðs‚Á‚Ä‚¢‚½‚ªA¡‰ñA¢ŠEŬEÅŒy—Ê‚ÌGPS‚ðŠJ”‚µAƒyƒbƒg‚ÉŽæ‚è•t‚¯‚邱‚ƂɬŒ÷‚µ‚½B
GPS’[––‚Ìî•ñ‚̓pƒ\ƒRƒ“A‚à‚µ‚‚ÍŒg‘Ñ“d˜b‚ÅŒŸõ‚·‚邱‚Æ‚ª‚Å‚«‚éB
‚±‚̉ĂɂÍGPS’[––‚ð“à‘ ‚µ‚½“d“®Ž©“]ŽÔ‚à””„‚³‚ê‚éB
2001”N‚É‘S‘‚Ì•ÛŒ’Š‚Ȃǂňø‚«Žæ‚ç‚ꂽ–ÀŽq‚̃yƒbƒg‚ÍA‚¨‚æ‚»40–œ•CB
‚±‚ê‚©‚ç‚Íl‚âŽÔ‚̈ʒu‚¾‚¯‚Å‚È‚A‰Æ‘°‚̈êˆõ‚Å‚ ‚éƒyƒbƒg‚̋ꊂà‚í‚©‚é‚悤‚É‚È‚éB
New implantable chips that provide a means of identity and medical history have just gone on sale to the public:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=562&e=1&u=/ap/mexico_microchip
This is by no means the first such solution for humans, more or less pets.
Mr. Taylor has an interesting take on my prediction that I would like to counter. First, his argument relies heavily on the admittedly Christian population. 49% of the population - when directly asked in a survey - may indeed respond that way. In fact, the very nature of Christianity is such that it relies on one proclaiming one's faith. I happen to live in the absolute heart of the Bible Belt of the South where there are as many highway billboards with Christian messages as there are for the anything else. If you were to conduct such a survey here you would easily have a 90% affirmative rate or higher. That said, the actions of the local populous do not confirm what they may state on such a survey. I would venture a guess that less then 20% locally would be concerned enough over the concept of implantation to correlate it with a passage from Revelations protest publicly.
This is a moot point, however. Mr. Taylor believes that some event would occur that would trigger public debate and a Supreme Court ruling. If such a direct approach to implantable tracking devices did occur, then I agree that it would be unlikely that my prediction would come to pass. However, I do not foresee such an event. As stated in my prediction, I do not see this technology being forced upon us en masse. Forcing anything of that nature would immediately cause a natural human reaction: rebellion. The approach I predict is more along the lines of Communism as described by Carl Marx. You can not take a society to Communism without going through the progression of steps he described. It you try, you get a version of Communism that must be continually enforced with a massive police force (overt and otherwise), doomed to fail. This has been proven. Through the progression Marx outlines, the people will choose to live in a Communist state if properly conditioned through years in other stages. My prediction is similar in that people will eventually choose to have such implants, for safety, for convenience, to assist the elderly or track kidnapped children, in the military, etc. Each instance will be isolated. By the time it becomes a national issue my prediction will be more then half way to fruition.
The question was raised, “What good is a tracking method for only 50% of the population?” My answer to that is simply that eventually it will be 98% of the population. There will always be the paranoid who resist (a bit of self-realization here…). That point is much further down the line though. I feel that the niche applications like the military, Alzheimer’s tracking, etc. will be enough to account for 50%.
Mark Wojcik said:
"It seems not entirely unlikely to me that by 2025 US citizens will not need embedded technology to facilitate tracking and identification.
I'm not describing what is necessarily a "Big Brother" scenario. It may simply be that a substantial leap forward in both computing and either farsensing or ubiquitous awareness technology will lead to a condition where at least 50% of US citizens can positively be tracked and identified -- by someone, at least -- without the need for any embedded anything."
Did you see the first episode of "Threat Matrix" this week? Homeland Security was jumping from traffic camera to traffic camera in Chicago to find a terrorist suspect using facial recognition, and found him outside a Starbucks. Cool show.
In real life, the Metropolitan Police in London have been using face recognition software to monitor passengers entering or leaving the Underground for a few years now. They're happy with the system's ability to recognize "troublemakers" and outright fugitives as they pass under security cameras.
However, facial recognition software is not as reliable as we'd wish for a way of absolutely and accurately identifying someone.
I think that the embedded chip might just catch on because of the ability to serve as a way for emergency medical personnel to identify an unconscious subject and access his or her medical files. Since an increasing proportion of the American population will suffer maturity-onset diabetes, the likelihood that these people will be found either unconscious or unable to cooperate with medical personnel means that placing tags in these people is in their interest. I wouldn't say 50 percent, more like 30 percent (diabetics, seizure-prones and other special patient population) would be excellent candidates for an electronic ID chip.
Overall, I'm surprised at the amount of voters running against this wager. 50% seems exceedingly optimistic. Surely, some dirty bomb will find it's circuit closed in an American city long before 2025, causing another wave of "unity" and the associated fearmongering and "Patriot" acts. All we need is one more building to come down, and the citizenry will look to their rulers for even more "security". So long as their leaders are "god fearin" christians, the masses will go with any proposal presented.
Even if not, the current historical trend favors a dramatic increase in ALL kinds of surveilance. "Civil liberties" are already sounding archaic in the civic discourse, a bit like being a Whig. Arguing cameras versus implants is a bit silly in this light. The average human will always turn to safety before freedom, especially given irrational arguments opposing the two. And rulers (let us not pretend that America does not have them now) shall always be happy to oblige on the side of security.
Still, I would like to mention one more technological tracking trend which is little known, yet poised to become a major problem: that of RFID. Miniscule, inexpensive devices which carry a simple coded chip and a radio, RFID devices usually don't even need a battery, but are activated by EM pulses sent by a reader. The range varies, but can be up to several meters. They are cheap, and getting cheaper. Similar to the beeping buzzers already in stores on CD's and clothes, these will NOT be removable upon purchase nor often visible to the eye. This isn't a future tech, either; this is now.
Tests are underway in grocery and retail stores to implant these in, well, virtually EVERYTHING. They can be sewn into your clothes. The benefits to companies are manifold, basically being able to micromanage the supply chain and track items and consumers instore. But once readers are in every building, and RFID's are in every jacket, finding someone in a crowd will make camera face recognition look like Jeffersonian liberty.
The first field tests were in Gillette razors at midwestern Walmarts. No one was told they were tracked. The devices were installed primarily for "security" purposes. Basically, if you moved the razors around the store in a "suspicious manner", you were tagged as a shoplifter. Given that this is the FIRST trial, and that it's already used to scrutinize and label people without their knowledge, this appears to be a real problem. It sure makes me feel fuzzy.
In the end, I personally get the feeling that there are simply too many trends converging on this to make draconian surveilance by government and private forces inescapable within my lifetime. This bet doesn't go far enough. One more "911", and they'll be implanting people for misdemeanors, arresting anyone with a critical placard, and detaining people who take too many Gillettes down from the shelf.
I still think that the technology for passive tracking (ie, without anything embedded in the person being tracked) will develop before social resistance to having a tracking chip embedded drops far enough.
Note that the bet says the "technology" will be embedded for the purpose of tracking. If, say, you got a chip embedded in your hand to be used like a credit card, would it be fair to say it was embedded for the purpose of tracking you (another function it would certainly serve, at least to some extent)? That becomes a matter of perspective, or semantics.
But I think that within ten years, or maybe fifteen, the governments of technologically advanced nations (including the US) will be able to track more than 50% of their residents without needing anything embedded.
Now, people are routinely tracked through their cellphones -- which aren't embedded but work quite well -- but measures like that won't even be necessary. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty confident about it.
Still, given the right circumstances, people could line up to have something embedded. But consider the paranoia today about children's safety and yet how few people voluntarily take their children to be fingerprinted 'for their safety'.
Mark - You are not wrong. There are in fact many ways to track us today. Almost everyone quickly pulls out the Bonus Card at the Grocery store, uses a cell phone, checks an ISP email account, uses a calling card number or credit card, etc. This, combined with everything from your tax records to a map to your house being completely public on the Internet, it is not a real challenge to find most people and the details of their lives. As facial recognition increases in popularity and those cameras on the sides of the highways learn to OCR your license plate number, you will most certainly be tracked. It is not a far stretch to say that law enforcement will have the ability – with a warrant – to access a central database of this information.
But there are gaps. Not everyone will use these things. Not everyone will be in a major city. My prediction does say “for the purpose of tracking” for a very specific reason. Let’s say, for example, that a child was abducted. That child would probably be placed in a secure location – not let to wander around and been seen by cameras or use her cell phone and credit cards. If she had an implanted tracking device, however, she could easily be found.
While your message elaborates on how we will be tracked unknowingly or unintentionally, I predict that the tracking component will be very deliberate. The examples you list will enable generic profiling and tracking of movements for people that are an active part of a culture going about daily routines. Even when taken to the extreme that was seen in a recent movie where retinas were scanned every 10 feet or so and billboards along sidewalks changed based on your purchasing history, there are still many holes. Those that did not want to be found – or that others did not want to have found – will not be traceable with the technologies you list.
I again predict that a technology will exist that will allow the tracking of individuals regardless of their location, their current state, their actions or their desires.
--Douglas
I again predict that a technology will exist that will allow the tracking of individuals regardless of their location, their current state, their actions or their desires.
Well, sure -- technologies like that already exist, especially if you don't mind a little looseness in your definition of "technology". And predictive computer models already can do a pretty good job of guessing where an individual is, based on knowledge of past behavior.
But the bet says that at least 50% of people will have embedded tracking technology, not that the technology will simply exist. I don't know. US citizens pretty consistently show a strong resistance to that sort of thing, whether it's the dreaded 'national ID card' or fingerprinting kids for 'safety reasons' at the local police station.
If it does happen, it could be because of changes in attitudes toward privacy as technology marches on . . . but my guess is that it's more likely that, again, if it does happen, it will largely be 'transparent' to most people.
For instance, some states use Social Security Numbers as driver's license numbers. This is not a good idea, and it's bad for personal security . . . but most people in the US aren't even aware if their state follows this practice, let alone are they aware of the dangers involved.
So if embedded tracking becomes prevalent by 2025, my guess is that it'll happen through some means that most people won't really be aware of.
I picked this up off the AP:
Chip Implanted in Mexico Judicial Workers
Wed Jul 14,10:11 PM ET Add Technology - AP to My Yahoo!
By WILL WEISSERT, Associated Press Writer
MEXICO CITY - Security has reached the subcutaneous level for Mexico's attorney general and at least 160 people in his office — they have been implanted with microchips that get them access to secure areas of their headquarters.
It's a pioneering application of a technology that is widely used in animals but not in humans. Mexico's top federal prosecutors and investigators began receiving chip implants in their arms in November in order to get access to restricted areas inside the attorney general's headquarters, said Antonio Aceves, general director of Solusat, the company that distributes the microchips in Mexico. Attorney General Rafael Macedo de la Concha and 160 of his employees were implanted at a cost to taxpayers of $150 for each rice grain-sized chip. More are scheduled to get "tagged" in coming months, and key members of the Mexican military, the police and the office of President Vicente Fox (news - web sites) might follow suit, Aceves said. Fox's office did not immediately return a call seeking comment. A spokeswoman for Macedo de la Concha's office said she could not comment on Aceves' statements, citing security concerns. But Macedo himself mentioned the chip program to reporters Monday, saying he had received an implant in his arm. He said the chips were required to enter a new federal anti-crime information center. "It's only for access, for security," he said. The chips also could provide more certainty about who accessed sensitive data at any given time. In the past, the biggest security problem for Mexican law enforcement has been corruption by officials themselves. Aceves said his company eventually hopes to provide Mexican officials with implantable devices that can track their physical location at any given time, but that technology is still under development. The chips that have been implanted are manufactured by VeriChip Corp., a subsidiary of Applied Digital Solutions Inc. of Palm Beach, Fla. They lie dormant under the skin until read by an electromagnetic scanner, which uses a technology known as radio frequency identification, or RFID, that's now getting hot in the inventory and supply chain businesses. Scott Silverman, Applied Digital Solutions' chief executive, said each of his company's implantable chips has a special identification number that would foil an impostor.
"The technology is out there to duplicate (a chip)," he said. "What can't be stolen is the unique identification number and the information that is tied to that number." Erik Michielsen, director of RFID analysis at ABI Research Inc., said that in theory the chips could be as secure as existing RFID-based access control systems such as the contactless employee badges widely used in corporate and government facilities. However, while those systems often employ encryption, Applied Digital's implantable chips do not as yet. Silverman said his company's system is nevertheless save because its chips can only be read by the company's proprietary scanners. In addition to the chips sold to the Mexican government, more than 1,000 Mexicans have implanted them for medical reasons, Aceves said. Hospital officials can use a scanning device to download a chip's serial number, which they then use to access a patient's blood type, name and other information on a computer. The Food and Drug Administration (news - web sites) has yet to approve microchips as medical devices in the United States. Still, Silverman said that his company has sold 7,000 chips to distributors worldwide and that more than 1,000 of those had likely been inserted into customers, mostly for security or identification reasons. In 2002, a Florida couple and their teenage son had Applied Digital Solutions chips implanted in their arms. The family hoped to someday be able to automatically relay their medical information to emergency room staffers. The chip originally was developed to track livestock and wildlife and to let pet owners identify runaway animals. The technology was created by Digital Angel Corp., which was acquired by Applied Digital Solutions in 1999. Because the Applied Digital chips cannot be easily removed — and are housed in glass capsules designed to break and be unusable if taken out — they could be even more popular someday if they eventually can incorporate locator capabilities. Already, global positioning system chips have become common accouterments on jewelry or clothing in Mexico. In fact, in March, Mexican authorities broke up a ring of used-car salesmen turned kidnappers who were known as "Los Chips" because they searched their victims to detect whether they were carrying the chips to help them be located.
___
On the Net:
http://www.adsx.com
___
AP Technology Writer Brian Bergstein in New York contributed to this report.
As long as there was a choice of wether you wanted the chip, I do not see a problem. If it was my choice then I would personally have a chip. If it was mandatory to take the chip, then I would refuse, being a christian. But that is just my opinion.
Considering that the united states has almost 300 million citizens, logistically speaking I do not think 20 some years is enough time for the government to develope, produce and implant half the population. If they started giving every newborn a chip tommorow, it would likely take two generations or more to meet that percentage. I am not argueing that this will not happen, just that it will not happen so quickly.
In the fifties they thought we would have flying cars and moon bases by now. These things tend to take longer than we expect.
Under the premise of keeping (us) safe they are already getting the first volunteers embedded with the readable devices like I had put in my dog. Fears after 9-11 really fueled this. Somewhere a government official will be working out his under-the-table kickback deal for the new legislation for a national sex offender chip act. Then also for good measure lets just put one in every school teacher and police officer and.... you see where this ends up. Just like the drug testing for "airline pilots only" idea. Look how that little idea took flight. There will also be features sold to us that we will be able to use like medical records and insurance information that will make it seem very handy and harmless. There will be much more to it that we will not be told about. I for one do not look forward to this. The new social card!
I do agree with people having tracking divices put in them. But i do not think that 20 yrs is enough time to finish this project or even to begin. This project will take time. but i am sure it will happen. We already have the technology to strat. The questoin is why would a regular( not importan) kid or adult need a tracking device? It would be a waste of time.
-G.e.m
Please sign in to comment.