OT: Microchip implants

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

This is posted as a "heads-up" for some future, but not to distant, time. It should scare the **** out of you. I suggest it'll first be widely implimented on "convicted felons" (have you noticed that is a current favorite term on news shows?). Perhaps also as an outcome of Y2K. I know its been discussed a little before, but the analysis of how the public will be "conditioned" seems right on.

FRIDAY JULY 30 1999

Concern over microchip implants New technology getting under some people's skin

By Jon E. Dougherty ) 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

Researchers say the technology is currently available to implant biometric devices in human beings, which can be monitored by government satellites and utilized by private industry. In fact some developers are currently attempting to bring the technology to the public and private sector. Though not yet generally available to the public, trials of sub-skin implants have been underway for nearly a year. For instance, The London Times reported in October 1998, "... Film stars and the children of millionaires are among 45 people, including several Britons, who have been approached and fitted with the chips (called the Sky Eye) in secret tests."

Critics, however, are worried about the increased support such devices are receiving because of the inherent risk to individual privacy. They contend that several governments, including the U.S., possess the ability to monitor such devices and, as a consequence, the people who have them -- even though they may not be wanted for a crime, listed as a missing person, or considered dangerous in any way.

A recent study of microchip implantation technology, written by Elaine M. Ramish for the Franklin Pierce Law Center, examined at length the ethical issue of privacy, which engulfs every debate surrounding implanted biometric devices. The study provided details about current research and development as well as marketing plans developers are likely to use to "sell" the idea to a generally skeptical American public and U.S. Congress.

In her study, though, Ramish said she believes the implementation of such devices will eventually become a reality despite their controversial identification role. But, she said, the concept is not a new one; other researchers have advocated the widespread use of biometric identification devices as early as 1967.

"Although microchip implantation might be introduced as a voluntary procedure, in time, there will be pressure to make it mandatory," Ramish wrote in her research paper entitled, "Time Enough? Consequences of Human Microchip Implantation."

"A national identification system via microchip implants could be achieved in two stages," she said. "Upon introduction as a voluntary system, the microchip implantation will appear to be palatable. After there is a familiarity with the procedure and a knowledge of its benefits, implantation would be mandatory." Indeed, of the test cases in Great Britain, so far benefactors have reported no negative consequences.

Ramish believes that "legislative protection(s) for individual rights" should be enacted by Congress and signed into law before any such devices could be brought to market.

In her paper, Ramish said recent polls have found that if guaranteed certain privacy protections, the number of Americans who would be willing to accept a medical information implant "rose by 11 percent." Such tracking devices have already been available to pet owners for nearly ten years, and biometric devices such as fingerprint scanners are quietly making their way into the public sector.

Ramish noted that a few U.S. firms were already developing, or had developed, implantable biometric devices capable of "read only, read-write and read-write with tracking" abilities. IBM, Hughes Aircraft, and Dallas Semiconductor are among several firms Ramish said currently were working to develop such systems, but none of them returned phone calls for comment from WorldNetDaily.

A spokesman for Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, also declined to comment on the possibility that someday Congress may be faced with the decision to mandate the implementation of such technology.

Though Smith is head of the House Ethics Committee -- a committee that normally examines only the ethical behavior of other House members -- his spokesman declined to say how Smith personally felt about the implementation of biometric technology in humans.

"He (Smith) has never addressed that issue," the spokesman said.

A spokesman for Democratic presidential nominee candidate and former U.S. Senator Bill Bradley told WorldNetDaily his boss, too, had never considered the possibility nor thought about the ramifications of personal privacy.

But George Getz, the communications director for the Libertarian Party, said party director Steve Dasbach "has considered the issue of privacy on many occasions."

"In fact," he said, "that's one issue we consistently address as Libertarians."

Getz said to the extent that this procedure is voluntary, "there certainly shouldn't be a law against it, because Libertarians believe that individuals, rather than the government, should have sole control over their own bodies."

"But the concept of government-mandated microchip implants is reprehensible," he added.

Getz said he believes the inevitability of such a device lies in "the government's ability to make living a normal life without one impossible." Though the chip implantation procedure might legally remain "voluntary," he said it's very likely that government at all levels would eventually force everyone to have one.

"After all, the government has never forced anyone to have a driver license," he said. "But try getting along without one, when everyone from your local banker to the car rental man to the hotel operator to the grocery store requires one in order for you to take advantage of their services."

"That amounts to a de facto mandate," he said. "If the government can force you to surrender your fingerprints to get a drivers license, why can't it force you to get a computer chip implant? These are differences in degree, not in kind -- which is why it's essential to fight government privacy invasions from the outset."

A spokesman for the House Science and Technology Committee, who requested anonymity, told WorldNetDaily that indeed the committee has "looked into the question of biometrics and the use of such technology on society." He said at present, however, no legislation requiring or permitting the use of such devices in humans is being considered in the House.

"We've looked at the issue across the board -- whether to fight fraud, fight crime, improve safety," he said, "but as far as this particular use of biometrics, I don't think we've ever really addressed it."

Not everyone is opposed to the idea, however.

Amitai Etzioni, Director of a group known as the Communitarian Network and a professor of Sociology at George Washington University, believes there are definite benefits to society using biometric technology.

In an article published recently, Etzioni -- who has written extensively on the issue of privacy -- said, "Opposition to these new technologies is particularly troubling given that the benefits are considerable."

"Once biometric devices are more fully developed, and as unit costs decline ... a person may forget his password, pin number and access code, and leave his ID card and keys at home," wrote Etzioni.

A spokesman on science and technology issues at the Communitarian Network, who also requested anonymity, confirmed that the organization -- and Mr. Etzioni specifically -- "has done extensive work on researching the benefits to society of biometric technology."

"Communities ... stand to reap considerable benefits," said Etzioni. "Once biometric devices are widely deployed, they will make it much more difficult for the estimated 330,000 criminals to remain on the lam. These fugitives not only avoid trial and incarceration but also often commit additional crimes while they roam the country with little concern."

The group also expresses support for all forms of biometric technology -- from scanners to implants -- as a way to increase benefits to child care facilities, decrease losses to businesses, and protect Americans who now fall prey to identity theft.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jon E. Dougherty is a senior writer and columnist for WorldNetDaily, as well as a morning co-host of Daybreak America.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTACT WND | GO TO PAGE ONE | SEARCH WND

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ) 1999 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This page was last built 7/30/99; 2:49:49 AM Direct corrections and technical inquiries to webmaster@worldnetdaily.com

-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), July 30, 1999

Answers

You know, this would scare me just a bit if it came from a reliable news source. But since it came from WorldNetDaily I think I will just yawn a bit and move on to the next thread.

-- Fat Tony (FatTony@yamuddashouse.com), July 30, 1999.

Fat Tony,

The technology is here for Revelation 13:18 to be fulfilled. Don't take any marks in your right hand or forehead.

-- trafficjam (judgementday@ahead.soon), July 30, 1999.


All we need is a crisis for something like this to happen. If y2k causes serious disruptions, then there's a good chance that this is the time (prelude of tribulation period) spoken of in Rev.

It's also strange that those against this are Christians in most cases. They will be called "crackpots", "nuts." Advances in technology are great! This is what we're told. So anybody that is against the advancement of technology has got to be a "nut", "outcast", and a "menace to society." Funny, isn't this exactly what the Bible says?

This is just one of many reasons why I'm not optimistic about y2k. There are too many other signs that tell me things aren't right.

-- Larry (cobol.programmer@usa.net), July 30, 1999.


I agree that a big crisis could bring the microchip implant into the big picture. Someday people won't be mocking revelation!

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), July 30, 1999.

I've been following this technology for some time now. It is basically an extension of smart card technology and the ID "buttons" now in use in the warehousing industry.

The implant is a miniaturized IC chip encased in a pellet the size of a grain of rice. It is embedded below the skin using a large syringe-like device. It is currently in trials with pets and farm animals.

What has intrigued me the most is the eerie way this artical conforms to Revelations:

"He (the antichrist) forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark..."

One of the great riddles of the Bible follows in the next verse:

"This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666."

Interestingly enough, in the language of the early Christians, the 6th letter of the Hebrew alphabet is W.

Does //www look familiar to anyone here????

-- Hawthorne (99@00.com), July 30, 1999.



My dog has one of these implants, a "Home Again". If she gets lost the animal control or vet scans with a little hand held scanner that reads out a code number. They look it up in the data base and voila my name address, phone etc are retrieved. So the technology is there, how we chose to use it is the question....

-- kozak (kozak@formerusaf.guv), July 31, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ