Chipping Children

[Rezzy]

I've heard talk in a few places of people wanting to insert electronic chips into their children, sort of like how people do with pets.

On the one hand, it would be useful in the event that one's child ever get lost or abducted, but on the other hand, it seems to dehumanize them to some extent, and there's the very likely possibility that outside people would have access to the signal. So I'm torn on what to think on this particular issue, and it doesn't seem to be a big issue, but an interesting thing that may become more commonplace in the future.

I thought I'd see what others thought about it one way or the other, parents in particular.

[Anacybele]

I agree, this would just be wrong and dehumanizing. While yes, it theoretically would help in cases where a kid goes missing or gets abducted or whatever, it would also violate their privacy and other rights and like you say, Rezzy, outside people could probably easily hack these things. For small kids, this might not be an issue, but for older ones, they would want better privacy and to not feel so controlled. Like you said, Rezzy, they're not pets, they're human children.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Anacybele

[-Cynthia-]

Gut reaction is that it's fine for small children (who effectively have no privacy rights due to needing constant supervision), but probably crosses a line for teenagers.

[Light Strategist]

So why not have it so that they could get it removed when they're older?

Seems sensible when you think about it.

[Augestein]

I don't like it. It's an invasion of privacy, and we don't know if baddies will find a way to exploit its initial usage.

[Rukina]

That would be an invasion of privacy, especially since the signal could be tracked by others, and a gateway to an escalating level of chip usage and abuse. If it were allowed people would ask: Since these kids are in our care for x amount of years why can't we keep it in them longer? If it can be used on kids than why can't it be used on inmates? If kids and inmates can use them than why not use them on juvenile delinquents? How about the elderly to keep track of them? Should we use them on high level security and government employees too? What about regular employees? Eventually the chips become part of the status quo and turning them down is seen as offensive. The chips start to evolve, becoming the new social security number, drivers license, passport, and more. Soon a human's identity becomes as simple as a string of code that can be accessed and tampered with by others for good or evil purposes.

[Rezzy]

That would be an invasion of privacy, especially since the signal could be tracked by others, and a gateway to an escalating level of chip usage and abuse. If it were allowed people would ask: Since these kids are in our care for x amount of years why can't we keep it in them longer? If it can be used on kids than why can't it be used on inmates? If kids and inmates can use them than why not use them on juvenile delinquents? How about the elderly to keep track of them? Should we use them on high level security and government employees too? What about regular employees? Eventually the chips become part of the status quo and turning them down is seen as offensive. The chips start to evolve, becoming the new social security number, drivers license, passport, and more. Soon a human's identity becomes as simple as a string of code that can be accessed and tampered with by others for good or evil purposes.

There are a few cases where they chip people, it's not subdermal, but people on parole from prison and people in nursing homes often wear ankle bracelets that track their location.

[EricaofRenais]

My main problem with chips is that at least with horses they have been proven to increase the likely hood of cancer tumors and I know that my dogs have ended up with cysts in the area where their chips are (this is all of my dogs that have had them except for one and I have had five with chips). So I would not have any of my future kids implanted with one because of what I have read and seen first hand.

[blah the Prussian]

Do kids have the right to privacy, though? I know that if my parents want to look at something I have, they have that right. The same goes for inmates; they have some rights in prison, but that isn't one. Of course, cancer risks and the cost of it all still make me against it, but I really don't see how privacy comes in to it.

[Julius Nepos]

Do kids have the right to privacy, though? I know that if my parents want to look at something I have, they have that right. The same goes for inmates; they have some rights in prison, but that isn't one. Of course, cancer risks and the cost of it all still make me against it, but I really don't see how privacy comes in to it.

The right to privacy is a human right, so children do have it. But of course, special circumstances can make justified limitations on the right to privacy. Small children can't reasonably be given full privacy, because they'll likely end up hurting themselves if they're left unsupervised for too long.

I don't know if chipping them would still count as a justified limitation though. If it does, I can't imagine it still being allowed once a kid is past their youngest, most vulnerable early years.

[Rezzy]

My main problem with chips is that at least with horses they have been proven to increase the likely hood of cancer tumors and I know that my dogs have ended up with cysts in the area where their chips are (this is all of my dogs that have had them except for one and I have had five with chips). So I would not have any of my future kids implanted with one because of what I have read and seen first hand.

What kind of cysts were they? Was in an inclusion cyst or reaction to the foreign body. That would not be cancer, but a reaction to the material of the chip. Cyst is a pretty general term, which could be either malignant or benign.

[blah the Prussian]

The right to privacy is a human right, so children do have it. But of course, special circumstances can make justified limitations on the right to privacy. Small children can't reasonably be given full privacy, because they'll likely end up hurting themselves if they're left unsupervised for too long.

I don't know if chipping them would still count as a justified limitation though. If it does, I can't imagine it still being allowed once a kid is past their youngest, most vulnerable early years.

Children quite obviously don't have the rights of an adult. They can't drive, they can't drink, they can't to a wide variety of things adults can, because they're children. Again, I'm not in favor of chipping, but not for privacy reasons.

[Phoenix Wright]

Do kids have the right to privacy, though? I know that if my parents want to look at something I have, they have that right. The same goes for inmates; they have some rights in prison, but that isn't one. Of course, cancer risks and the cost of it all still make me against it, but I really don't see how privacy comes in to it.

they have limited privacy.

[Water Mage]

Children quite obviously don't have the rights of an adult. They can't drive, they can't drink, they can't to a wide variety of things adults can, because they're children. Again, I'm not in favor of chipping, but not for privacy reasons.

They might have limited rights to privacy now, but not forever.

Chipping a child would not allow them to develop their own sense of privacy, which would make them messed up adults.

[EricaofRenais]

What kind of cysts were they? Was in an inclusion cyst or reaction to the foreign body. That would not be cancer, but a reaction to the material of the chip. Cyst is a pretty general term, which could be either malignant or benign.

It has been a while since the last dog to have a cyst had one and I don't remember the term the vet used. Thing is the dogs have had different types and I think they have reacted differently, we have never chipped our horses but I read that the chips were causing a higher chance of cancer then horses without one. The dogs didn't get cancer, but the cysts are bad enough that the next dog we get I don't want to chip because of the problems the ones I have now have had.

[eclipse]

Dear goodness, NO! Not until the IoT/medical world gets its act together, in terms of security! Here's an example of one such flaw.

[NekoKnight]

Seems like an abuse of privacy/human rights. I could understand high risk individuals, i.e. people with violent criminal records, getting chipped but not for others. Parents don't need or have a right to know THAT much about their children's movement, in my opinion.

[Moblin Major General]

Usually, I would be against this, but if the family is active outdoors or lives in a high risk neighborhood, it could be used. The authorities should hold the chip scanner in these cases, not the parents. I don't know what it would do to the human body, given the physiological differences between cats, dogs, and humans. Also, I could see it being used in sleepwalkers, seniors, and criminals of a violent, sexual, or negligent(as in poor driving in the extreme) nature. It seems I could advocate it for a lot of things, but there must be significant probable cause, like if the recipient could hurt themselves or be hurt if there was no chip, especially in the case of seniors and sleepwalkers.

[Res]

No, never. Even if security flaws are addressed.

Also, what if the child was fleeing abuse at home?

I can understand parents' concerns - and there are quite a few options these days that can help provide security. There are the wrist-bands that allow a child to press a button and call their parents, for example. And if a child was exceptionally at risk, I can see microchipping clothing - but that's as far as I'd want to see anything go.

[Rezzy]

No, never. Even if security flaws are addressed.

Also, what if the child was fleeing abuse at home?

I can understand parents' concerns - and there are quite a few options these days that can help provide security. There are the wrist-bands that allow a child to press a button and call their parents, for example. And if a child was exceptionally at risk, I can see microchipping clothing - but that's as far as I'd want to see anything go.

That's how I'm feeling. I wouldn't want to actually put anything in subdermally, but I could conceivably put a chip in their shoes or the like.

[eclipse]

No, never. Even if security flaws are addressed.

Also, what if the child was fleeing abuse at home?

I can understand parents' concerns - and there are quite a few options these days that can help provide security. There are the wrist-bands that allow a child to press a button and call their parents, for example. And if a child was exceptionally at risk, I can see microchipping clothing - but that's as far as I'd want to see anything go.

IoT security is really sloppy. Furthermore, there's other issues like support for outdated hardware that would need to be addressed. If IoT security was even half-competent, this shouldn't have happened. And don't get me started on cars. . .

In other words, I have so little faith in the industry that I might as well have said "never".

[Rukina]

There are a few cases where they chip people, it's not subdermal, but people on parole from prison and people in nursing homes often wear ankle bracelets that track their location.

Those type of chips aren't inhumane and can be removed without the use of surgery.

Another thing worth mentioning is medical problems. Children grow very fast. Installing a tracking chip in a child would be riskier than installing it in a teen or adult, especially if the body identifies it as a foreign object that needs to be removed. Things such as cancer and tumors, as mentioned in another post, would also have to be looked into since certain types of cells made defective by the signals from the chip, or a faulty healing process, could turn into one or the other and quickly become fatal due to the speed a child's cells replicate.

[Tolvir]

It is really mixed for me. I am looking to get into the Cyber Crime area of the Justice Department. The amount of children trafficked and abused for Child Pornography and other terrible things is horrible. A lot of these kids are kidnapping victims. If they had something like this chip, they could be found and rescued so much easier. At the same time though, implanting a chip on little jimmy because overprotective parents #243 decide they dont like him staying out past 5, even though he is 12, would be bad.

So its mixed. I see the potential for this to be something extremely helpful in the safety of children from Child Predators, because it is there, and more prevalent than people like to think, but at the same time there is so much that can go wrong.

[NekoKnight]

Maybe to solve the privacy issue, searching for the chip would only be done via the police, ie you'd have to make a report to the police, to discourage casual spying on your children.

[eclipse]

Maybe to solve the privacy issue, searching for the chip would only be done via the police, ie you'd have to make a report to the police, to discourage casual spying on your children.

You trust the police to NEVER, EVER abuse this?