From: Dossy (dossy@panoptic.com)
Date: Fri Dec 21 2001 - 11:32:14 MST
On 2001.12.21, J. R. Molloy <jr@shasta.com> wrote:
> [the subdermal identity chip] is raising the eyebrows of civil
> libertarians and others wary of identification that cannot be turned
> off.
I'm of the "locks only keep honest people out" variety. People
who want to identify you will find ways to identify you, no matter
how hard you try to avoid it.
A passive identification chip has great potential. Office places
could monitor employees entering and leaving the building, preventing
unauthorized access. They can also use it to identify what employees
are still inside a building in case of emergency (earthquake, fire,
etc.).
An emergency patient could have their identity linked to all their
health conditions and be correlated in short amount of time, rather
than trying to locate a wallet and looking up the John Smith amongst
hundreds of thousands of John Smiths, while the person may be dying
on a stretcher in a ICU ward.
Now, if only the chip wouldn't require surgery, and was proven not
to be harmful (how does it transmit? hmmm...) it could really take
off. Perhaps a swallowable pill identifier could be an idea.
-- Dossy
--
Dossy Shiobara mail: dossy@panoptic.com
Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/
"He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own
folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:42 MST