RFID MicroChip (VeriChip): FDA approves computer chip for humans

[beeksc1]

WASHINGTON - Medical milestone or privacy invasion?
A tiny computer chip approved Wednesday for implantation in a patient’s arm can speed vital information about a patient’s medical history to doctors and hospitals. But critics warn that it could open new ways to imperil the confidentiality of medical records.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6237364/

Microchips have been implanted into pets, Alzheimer's patients, military, corporate executives.

Is there a concern regarding the implantation of RFID microchips into the human population?

Moving this thread to Current Events and Social Issues because it's not really about politics. Let's try to keep it out of Conspiracy Theories, eh?

Posted By: Tricky

 

[lionking]

Er, no.

 

[332nd]

IIRC One of our members here at JREF got chipped! He was in the army and... and... BWAAAAHAHAHA!

 

[KingMerv00]

The mark of the beast is finally here? Good, I was sick of waiting.

 

[SezMe]

Microchips have been implanted into pets, Alzheimer's patients, military, corporate executives.

Cite?

 

[The Mutha]

I'd be perfectly fine with it, as long as it could be updated with current data. I ride motorcycles, so I currently wear a medicalert dog tag type thing with a flash drive in it with all my current medical information as well as my living will and organ donor info.

 

[Upchurch]

give the dang thing GPS capabilities and I would chip my kid tomorrow until he turns 18.

 

[beeksc1]

Cite?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0EpQ1k5poM

The Microchip is presented with Peter Jennings. This clip references government officials as getting chips. I am sure you can easily find another source that indicates that corporate executives are getting chipped. I know it is out there.

give the dang thing GPS capabilities and I would chip my kid tomorrow until he turns 18.

Really? So, you think once your child is 18 years of age, your child will be able to get the VeriChip removed? So why do want your child to get chipped?

Let us not be naïve.

If you would have asked a person a hundred years ago, if they would have a micro computer chip embedded in their skin for health and security reasons, that person of a hundred years ago would have told you, you are spitting woo. Fifty years ago, a person would have told you that microchips are only science fiction. Now, it is here. The media is trying to sell the people on the idea that microchips are good.

Microchips are a technology; and with any technology, it is all about intent of use. Does anyone foresee potential abuses of the implantable microchip?

 

[Denver]

...
Microchips are a technology; and with any technology, it is all about intent of use. Does anyone foresee potential abuses of the implantable microchip?

How would the abuse be any worse than eventually developing a fast way to grab a person's DNA and look up their medical history wirelessly in a database? (Which, seems to me, will most likely eclipse this chip technology anyways).

 

[beeksc1]

How would the abuse be any worse than eventually developing a fast way to grab a person's DNA and look up their medical history wirelessly in a database? (Which, seems to me, will most likely eclipse this chip technology anyways).

GPS.

DNA databases seemingly are without the potential abuses surfacing in the context of implantable microchips. An DNA database does not include the capabilities of tracking a person anywhere on the globe.

Back to microchip implants in humans. One potential drawback lies in the fact that the Microchip implants have been linked to animal tumors.

Chip Implants Linked to Animal Tumors

By TODD LEWAN
The Associated Press
Saturday, September 8, 2007; 2:04 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090800997_pf.html

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

This is horrible. Now they will know I shop at Wallmart!

 

[Thunder]

i'd actually love to have a chip in my arm. it would contain all my medical data and bank account info.

what's wrong with this? i carry this crap in my wallet anyways. so what's the difference?

just imagine: u get hit by a car and are unconscious. EMTs show up and scan your arm, finding out that you are allergic to certain meds and have a serious medical condition. the chip may have saved your life.

 

[Denver]

How would the abuse be any worse than eventually developing a fast way to grab a person's DNA and look up their medical history wirelessly in a database? (Which, seems to me, will most likely eclipse this chip technology anyways).

GPS.

DNA databases seemingly are without the potential abuses surfacing in the context of implantable microchips. An DNA database does not include the capabilities of tracking a person anywhere on the globe.

While it sounds as though the chip could be designed to facilite tracking, there is nothing that requires it to do so. So assuming that 'feature' was not included, still ok with it?

Back to microchip implants in humans. One potential drawback lies in the fact that the Microchip implants have been linked to animal tumors.

Chip Implants Linked to Animal Tumors

Sounds like a potential problem. So once that issue is solved, and there is no GPS, would you be ok with it?

 

[elbe]

If you would have asked a person a hundred years ago, if they would have a micro computer chip embedded in their skin for health and security reasons, that person of a hundred years ago would have told you, you are spitting woo. Fifty years ago, a person would have told you that microchips are only science fiction. Now, it is here. The media is trying to sell the people on the idea that microchips are good.

How is that relevant? If you tried to describe the internet to someone 100 years ago they probably wouldn't really understand it, does that make the internet bad?

Personally, I think the idea has merit, and it's not like RFID chips can be read from all that far away. There would be legal limits to where scanners can be placed, and even if there wasn't the location information would most likely be spotty.

 

[beeksc1]

i'd actually love to have a chip in my arm. it would contain all my medical data and bank account info.

what's wrong with this? i carry this crap in my wallet anyways. so what's the difference?

just imagine: u get hit by a car and are unconscious. EMTs show up and scan your arm, finding out that you are allergic to certain meds and have a serious medical condition. the chip may have saved your life.

What is wrong with it? Are you serious?

1. Civil liberties
2. Privacy concerns

See, the thing is that I would never imagine myself in a car accident. I am both intelligent and positive.

And when you ask people to imagine something detrimental happening to them, what are exactly getting at? To even suggest to someone imagine getting in a car accident seems quite sadistic.

Sounds like a potential problem. So once that issue is solved, and there is no GPS, would you be ok with it?

Do you believe that nosy corporations and snooping governments would respect people privacy rights, with or without GPS capabilities?

Personally, I think the idea has merit, and it's not like RFID chips can be read from all that far away. There would be legal limits to where scanners can be placed, and even if there wasn't the location information would most likely be spotty.

Yes, I also believe the MicroChip idea has merit; but, it is a game of advantages and disadvantages. People starve every year. If humanity cannot feed every living person, how can we begin to manage a technology as such RFID tracking device?

 

[elbe]

Yes, I also believe the MicroChip idea has merit; but, it is a game of advantages and disadvantages. People starve every year. If humanity cannot feed every living person, how can we begin to manage a technology as such RFID tracking device?

So, non sequitur, therefore RFID tech is bad, is that right? Weird.

Did you know the govt could put up cameras on all the streets and track the movement of all the cars? Or the ubiquitous cell phones? Just because something could be used to track someone, even though it would be prohibitively expensive to implement, doesn't mean they would.

 

[TjW]

What is wrong with it? Are you serious?

1. Civil liberties
2. Privacy concerns

See, the thing is that I would never imagine myself in a car accident. I am both intelligent and positive.

And when you ask people to imagine something detrimental happening to them, what are exactly getting at? To even suggest to someone imagine getting in a car accident seems quite sadistic.



Do you believe that nosy corporations and snooping governments would respect people privacy rights, with or without GPS capabilities?



Yes, I also believe the MicroChip idea has merit; but, it is a game of advantages and disadvantages. People starve every year. If humanity cannot feed every living person, how can we begin to manage a technology as such RFID tracking device?

Hey, that's a fun game -- kind of like Mad Libs.

If humanity cannot feed every living person, how can we begin to manage a technology as automobiles?
If humanity cannot feed every living person, how can we begin to manage a technology such as jet aircraft?
If humanity cannot feed every living person, how can we begin to manage a technology such as networked computers?

You just insert the name of a technology, and magically, a new non sequitur appears.

 

[beeksc1]

So, non sequitur, therefore RFID tech is bad, is that right? Weird.
Did you know the govt could put up cameras on all the streets and track the movement of all the cars? Or the ubiquitous cell phones? Just because something could be used to track someone, even though it would be prohibitively expensive to implement, doesn't mean they would.

Non sequitur. I stand corrected on that one particular instance. Yes, I am aware of the tracking that is ongoing.

Please address the issue from the original post.

Do you believe that nosy corporations and snooping governments would respect people privacy rights, with or without GPS capabilities?

 

[casebro]

i'd actually love to have a chip in my arm. it would contain all my medical data and bank account info.

what's wrong with this? i carry this crap in my wallet anyways. so what's the difference?

Just imagine: I could kill you, dig out your chip, tape it to my own arm, buy a plane ticket on your debit, then carry a bomb onto the plane...

I think dna or retina scans are a more positive ID.

The bit about implanted medical records sounds good though. Hmmm, maybe implanted records, but retinal ID?

 

[elbe]

Do you believe that nosy corporations and snooping governments would respect people privacy rights, with or without GPS capabilities?

Well, that's sort of what laws are for. If you don't believe that governments or corporations follow laws then this wouldn't actually change anything. Anyways, trying to track everyone using RDIF technology would be more expensive than just tracking cell phone gps all the time.