Chipping Children

[NekoKnight]

You trust the police to NEVER, EVER abuse this?

How would they abuse it, exactly?

[eclipse]

How would they abuse it, exactly?

Track people without cause/permission, for one. Some people are fine with advertising their location to everyone (see: people who tell everyone on Facebook that they're going on vacation, and where). Others are not (see: me).

[NekoKnight]

Track people without cause/permission, for one. Some people are fine with advertising their location to everyone (see: people who tell everyone on Facebook that they're going on vacation, and where). Others are not (see: me).

If the police do something illegal, there are already channels to deals with such issues. You might disagree with it in principle (in which case, don't get a tracking chip), but that information is better held by law enforcement than private individuals. This is only relevant to minors anyway. Adults who don't want their location made known to the police would be able to decline such a service.

[eclipse]

If the police do something illegal, there are already channels to deals with such issues. You might disagree with it in principle (in which case, don't get a tracking chip), but that information is better held by law enforcement than private individuals. This is only relevant to minors anyway. Adults who don't want their location made known to the police would be able to decline such a service.

The entire privacy debate is one that I side more on the privacy side of. Though not directly related to chips, many of the concerns raised by people opposed to this ring true in this situation. Why should someone be part of some sort of tracking program, when there's nothing that makes them a person of interest to the police?

Furthermore, information is something that can't be taken back once it's out there, so even if there are appropriate actions taken against someone who accesses tracking information illegally, the damage has already been done. I happen to be quite fond of my local police force, but that apparently didn't stop the bad apples.

Worst of all, minors can't legally consent to being tracked. Shitty/abusive parents exist, and those are the ones that absolutely should NOT have this sort of information!

[NekoKnight]

The entire privacy debate is one that I side more on the privacy side of. Though not directly related to chips, many of the concerns raised by people opposed to this ring true in this situation. Why should someone be part of some sort of tracking program, when there's nothing that makes them a person of interest to the police?

Furthermore, information is something that can't be taken back once it's out there, so even if there are appropriate actions taken against someone who accesses tracking information illegally, the damage has already been done. I happen to be quite fond of my local police force, but that apparently didn't stop the bad apples.

Worst of all, minors can't legally consent to being tracked. Shitty/abusive parents exist, and those are the ones that absolutely should NOT have this sort of information!

I read your article and what I saw was that those databases led to the arrests of criminals and the 'concerns' people had were baseless paranoia about fascist takeovers. These chips are would be either be voluntary or given to minors (moral gray area, but there you go). Unless it can be proven as a serious security risk, chip information being held my law enforcement could be used to rescue kidnapped children or help runaways fleeing abuse.

[eclipse]

I read your article and what I saw was that those databases led to the arrests of criminals and the 'concerns' people had were baseless paranoia about fascist takeovers. These chips are would be either be voluntary or given to minors (moral gray area, but there you go). Unless it can be proven as a serious security risk, chip information being held my law enforcement could be used to rescue kidnapped children or help runaways fleeing abuse.

Are you willing to acknowledge just how bad it can (and will) get, whether it be used for harassment, stalking, or people who otherwise have no right knowing someone's location? I suppose this is one of those things where you've never had someone follow you, so be thankful for the lack of context. However, it's an awful feeling, and punishment after the fact doesn't alleviate the damage caused - much like how vandalism is illegal, but punishing the vandal won't undo the damage.

[Life]

Guardian's decision.

The issue of privacy is another one and that's why I would prefer that this sector is entirely privatized. But first and foremost, I am accepting of a parent's choice to partake or not because they are the legal guardian of the child until age 18.

[NekoKnight]

Are you willing to acknowledge just how bad it can (and will) get, whether it be used for harassment, stalking, or people who otherwise have no right knowing someone's location? I suppose this is one of those things where you've never had someone follow you, so be thankful for the lack of context. However, it's an awful feeling, and punishment after the fact doesn't alleviate the damage caused - much like how vandalism is illegal, but punishing the vandal won't undo the damage.

You act as though the police aren't already capable of doing surveillance on you without your consent or knowledge.

So I'm curious about how this technology works. In order to track the chip, do you need specific hardware or is it as simple as knowing a code and anyone could access it with that knowledge?

[Life]

You act as though the police aren't already capable of doing surveillance on you without your consent or knowledge.

So I'm curious about how this technology works. In order to track the chip, do you need specific hardware or is it as simple as knowing a code and anyone could access it with that knowledge?

They can't because it would violate the 4th amendment. Search and seizure laws.

That is exactly why it should be privatized because a private company would want to keep that information confidential in order to sell more units (their self-interest in wanting profits keeps my info secure).

[eclipse]

You act as though the police aren't already capable of doing surveillance on you without your consent or knowledge.

So I'm curious about how this technology works. In order to track the chip, do you need specific hardware or is it as simple as knowing a code and anyone could access it with that knowledge?

So if you agree that the police are already doing what I strenuously object to, WHY would you give them more tools to do so?

Quick and dirty intro to GPS.

They can't because it would violate the 4th amendment. Search and seizure laws.

That is exactly why it should be privatized because a private company would want to keep that information confidential in order to sell more units (their self-interest in wanting profits keeps my info secure).

Of the way-too-many entities that have my information, the ones that I have the "most" confidence in are the ones in the health care industry, because the government does not fuck around with HIPAA. That being said, it wasn't enough to stop this. I have plenty more examples of data breaches, from a wide variety of companies, if you want to see just how shoddy information security can be. Security isn't profitable.

Also, what are your thoughts about the Snowden fiasco? I know this seems like a tangent, but I have a reason for asking this.

[Life]

So if you agree that the police are already doing what I strenuously object to, WHY would you give them more tools to do so?

Quick and dirty intro to GPS.

Of the way-too-many entities that have my information, the ones that I have the "most" confidence in are the ones in the health care industry, because the government does not fuck around with HIPAA. That being said, it wasn't enough to stop this. I have plenty more examples of data breaches, from a wide variety of companies, if you want to see just how shoddy information security can be. Security isn't profitable.

Also, what are your thoughts about the Snowden fiasco? I know this seems like a tangent, but I have a reason for asking this.

I think that Snowden and also WikiLeaks show that the US government has forgotten what the role of government really is. It also tells me that the government believes that the people are beholden to it when it is really the other way round.

Security is absolutely profitable. Just because a company can get hacked doesn't mean the government can't. The only difference is that the company has a vested interest in wanting my information as secure as possible.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Life

[eclipse]

I think that Snowden and also WikiLeaks show that the US government has forgotten what the role of government really is. It also tells me that the government believes that the people are beholden to it when it is really the other way round.

Security is absolutely profitable. Just because a company can get hacked doesn't mean the government can't. The only difference is that the company has a vested interest in wanting my information as secure as possible.

Knowing that the government doesn't have the best interest of people in mind, why would you aggregate any MORE information, and make it available? A private company won't help, because of shit like gag orders.

The government can be hacked, as well, and I can find examples of this. However, I don't think you understand how companies work. Security doesn't increase their profits - instead, they have to spend time and money to make a product more secure. Since it's a cost sink, with its benefits being intangible, it's not going to be the first and foremost thing that happens. The proof is a lot of different breaches, from various private companies. Some of the more tech-savvy ones are taking steps to mitigate it through stuff like bug bounties, but that's not every last one. The worst offenders are the IoT guys, due to things like support cycles and the inability to easily deploy firmware updates to everything (I linked a fun little article about this earlier). Microchips fall under this - every single thing I've seen so far indicates that security is exceedingly sloppy, and it falls under a government who'd gladly slurp up the data for their own ends. I can't imagine how this can be a good idea, with things the way they are now.

[Life]

Knowing that the government doesn't have the best interest of people in mind, why would you aggregate any MORE information, and make it available? A private company won't help, because of shit like gag orders.The government can be hacked, as well, and I can find examples of this. However, I don't think you understand how companies work. Security doesn't increase their profits - instead, they have to spend time and money to make a product more secure. Since it's a cost sink, with its benefits being intangible, it's not going to be the first and foremost thing that happens. The proof is a lot of different breaches, from various private companies. Some of the more tech-savvy ones are taking steps to mitigate it through stuff like bug bounties, but that's not every last one. The worst offenders are the IoT guys, due to things like support cycles and the inability to easily deploy firmware updates to everything (I linked a fun little article about this earlier). Microchips fall under this - every single thing I've seen so far indicates that security is exceedingly sloppy, and it falls under a government who'd gladly slurp up the data for their own ends. I can't imagine how this can be a good idea, with things the way they are now.

I think that you're bringing a weak argument to the table, eclipse. I'm disappointed, you're better than that.

Just because I see the government as inherently prone to making mistakes doesn't mean that I don't believe in the need for government. Security of the state is one of the primary functions of government, as an example. But there is a clear difference between security and ignoring search & seizure rights. Just like the government does not have the right to take away my property for whatever reason with no due process, I am not obliged to provide them with my cyber security details. If I choose to work with a private contractor instead because they have a monetary incentive to keep my information secure, them failing means that they will lose money and go bankrupt.

It is private security corperations rather than the government who have more of a moral duty to uphold my security because of the power of my dollar. If I take my dollar elsewhere because I do not trust the services, the company then fails. The government isn't beholden to the individual the same way private enterprises are because there is no incentive for them to put in their best effort. They may do so regardless but it is far from assured.

As for why, it is because technology is changing at a massive rate. Less than 10 years ago, we weren't carrying around microcomputers in our pockets. To adapt, one of the things to be discussed is the idea of microchips which has both its virtues and its faults.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Life

[eclipse]

I'm not sure if it's worth the hours necessary to dig up the sources to respond to this, simply because it isn't in my best interest to research this, Life. It's in yours, if you want to learn more about this subject (and I strongly suggest you do, if you think that Snowden's contributions were worthwhile). Look up the various data breaches, ranging from Target to Adobe to Ashley Madison - a trio of very famous ones that wouldn't have been such a disaster if the proper security protocols were in place.

[Life]

I'm not sure if it's worth the hours necessary to dig up the sources to respond to this, simply because it isn't in my best interest to research this, Life. It's in yours, if you want to learn more about this subject (and I strongly suggest you do, if you think that Snowden's contributions were worthwhile). Look up the various data breaches, ranging from Target to Adobe to Ashley Madison - a trio of very famous ones that wouldn't have been such a disaster if the proper security protocols were in place.

I think you missed the point that I was making about Snowden.

Nowhere did I say that he was a hero. Nor did I imply it (and I think you're making that assumption but correct me if I'm wrong). What I said was simply that Snowden pulled back the curtain on the US government in exposing the fact that it no longer believes that it is answerable to the people.

[Naughx]

If insurance companies began to require to chip people... That's would be quite concerning.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Naughx