TexasCHLforum.com

No, I'm not going to allow them (the government) to inject me. My point was simply that we're already voluntarily chipped... At least most of us.
You're right, you can physically power it down. I just don't care that much. It's probably desentization as I work in technology see every day how much information is given up.

It's also a bit of potential privacy sacrifice for convenience and employment demands.

Last, my tracking is intentionally turned on in case I don't come home... Plane, motorcycle, car - my wife would have a good idea of where to look. She can actively see where I am pretty much at all times, which I find easier than a "where are you" phone call.

I don't own a home phone. I haven't had one for 15 years.

I can't see any reasonable objection to using finger prints to positively identify someone before issuing an identity document.

Mike.B wrote:I can't see any reasonable objection to using finger prints to positively identify someone before issuing an identity document.

Tell that to the anti-voter-ID folks.

Mike.B wrote:I can't see any reasonable objection to using finger prints to positively identify someone before issuing an identity document.

By that logic, why not use DNA when the technology gets there to do it quickly? It' be more accurate than fingerprints.

sjfcontrol wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:I'm not worried about chips. We're pretty much all already chipped (cell phone) by our own doing. It's well established that cell phones provide location data and that cell phone providers already bend to government will. Basically: The chips are already here.

Are you being sarcastic or serious? You're willing to let the government inject a chip into your body because it's like a cell phone? I can take the battery out of my cell phone or leave it at home. And BTW, I only have a cell phone because my company issued it to me and pays for it. If I had to pay for it, I wouldn't have one.....at least not on a plan....I'd just have a burner phone that would be in my car, battery removed, in case of emergency.

Oh, as far as the DNA finger printing goes....they already made a pretty good movie about the consequences of that.

Gattaca?

Yes.

cb1000rider wrote:No, I'm not going to allow them (the government) to inject me. My point was simply that we're already voluntarily chipped... At least most of us.
You're right, you can physically power it down. I just don't care that much. It's probably desentization as I work in technology see every day how much information is given up.

It's also a bit of potential privacy sacrifice for convenience and employment demands.

Last, my tracking is intentionally turned on in case I don't come home... Plane, motorcycle, car - my wife would have a good idea of where to look. She can actively see where I am pretty much at all times, which I find easier than a "where are you" phone call.

I don't own a home phone. I haven't had one for 15 years.

That people are voluntarily chipped is what alarms me because that ultimately could pave the way to making it impossible for those of us unwilling to volunteer to avoid it. I don't work for a company that invades my privacy, and I'm not doing anything to warrant surveillance, so I don't take any measures to avoid being tracked. Of course, there are a lot more problems with being chipped than merely being tracked, as other posters have pointed out. I'm essentially tracked at work by where I use my swipe card and the RFID card we have to carry, but that doesn't bother me because the company isn't actively monitoring everyone and I can take it off any time. I do take steps to minimize my footprints on the internet and especially to block pop ups and unwanted advertising. I'm not particularly concerned about the status quo but I am concerned about the direction we're headed.

cb1000rider wrote:

Mike.B wrote:I can't see any reasonable objection to using finger prints to positively identify someone before issuing an identity document.

By that logic, why not use DNA when the technology gets there to do it quickly? It' be more accurate than fingerprints.

Because fingerprints don't reveal anything about you but your identity. You can make the case that it isn't an invasion of your privacy since you leave prints on just about anything you touch. OTOH, DNA tells things about you that you don't even know yourself and can be used in numerous ways to injure you. Taking your DNA is clearly an invasion of privacy.

VMI77 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

Mike.B wrote:I can't see any reasonable objection to using finger prints to positively identify someone before issuing an identity document.

By that logic, why not use DNA when the technology gets there to do it quickly? It' be more accurate than fingerprints.

Because fingerprints don't reveal anything about you but your identity. You can make the case that it isn't an invasion of your privacy since you leave prints on just about anything you touch. OTOH, DNA tells things about you that you don't even know yourself and can be used in numerous ways to injure you. Taking your DNA is clearly an invasion of privacy.

You leave DNA on just about everything you touch, too. But I agree with the rest of your statement.

VMI77 wrote: Because fingerprints don't reveal anything about you but your identity. You can make the case that it isn't an invasion of your privacy since you leave prints on just about anything you touch. OTOH, DNA tells things about you that you don't even know yourself and can be used in numerous ways to injure you. Taking your DNA is clearly an invasion of privacy.

Didn't you indicate that all of our medical data is already being absorbed by the Federal government under the rules for electronic records? If that wasn't you, I apologize...
If that's true, then medical data is already tied to ID. ID tied to fingerprint.

All DNA would give up is potential not-yet-discovered medical issues.

And of course, DNA base "ID" would never be used to invade privacy... No, the government wouldn't do that... :-)

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote: Because fingerprints don't reveal anything about you but your identity. You can make the case that it isn't an invasion of your privacy since you leave prints on just about anything you touch. OTOH, DNA tells things about you that you don't even know yourself and can be used in numerous ways to injure you. Taking your DNA is clearly an invasion of privacy.

Didn't you indicate that all of our medical data is already being absorbed by the Federal government under the rules for electronic records? If that wasn't you, I apologize...
If that's true, then medical data is already tied to ID. ID tied to fingerprint.

All DNA would give up is potential not-yet-discovered medical issues.

And of course, DNA base "ID" would never be used to invade privacy... No, the government wouldn't do that... :-)

May have...don't remember...but yes, that work is in progress and it's scary. I don't think we know enough about DNA to understand what all information we're potentially giving up, but not yet discovered medical issues is bad enough given that it is likely to be used against us in various ways. Have you seen Gattaca?

sjfcontrol wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

Mike.B wrote:I can't see any reasonable objection to using finger prints to positively identify someone before issuing an identity document.

By that logic, why not use DNA when the technology gets there to do it quickly? It' be more accurate than fingerprints.

Because fingerprints don't reveal anything about you but your identity. You can make the case that it isn't an invasion of your privacy since you leave prints on just about anything you touch. OTOH, DNA tells things about you that you don't even know yourself and can be used in numerous ways to injure you. Taking your DNA is clearly an invasion of privacy.

You leave DNA on just about everything you touch, too. But I agree with the rest of your statement.

Yes, my statement wasn't precise, but I don't want to get into the technicalities.

VMI77 wrote: May have...don't remember...but yes, that work is in progress and it's scary. I don't think we know enough about DNA to understand what all information we're potentially giving up, but not yet discovered medical issues is bad enough given that it is likely to be used against us in various ways. Have you seen Gattaca?

I've seen Gattaca.
I dunno.. Fingerprints are a pretty good means of tying people to all sorts of stuff. DNA would be better.. And it would solve a *lot* of bad-guy crime, both past and present. I'm not saying that I want to go there, I just recognize the trend.
It's just more invasion of privacy. Which ramps up as technology becomes more invasive. I don't ever see it getting better, it'll just get worse.

Like you, I don't trust the government. I just don't think that I'm of particular interest on their radar. There is just too much data to sift through to effectively categorize and monitor everyone. That will change, but it will be the problem for future generations...