Resistance is Futile

Sunday, February 12, 2006
Borg me now, baby! The Nazis used tatoo numbers to track their worker bees. RFID's weren't available then. A company in Cincinnati now requires employees to use implanted RFID tags to enter a secure data center. Two employees have knuckled under so far.

It's not just wacko leftoids like yours truly who see a possible problem here.

"While Christians have theological reasons to reject being uniquely numbered, this is an issue that should concern anyone who values privacy and civil liberties," said Albrecht. "The VeriChip is Big Brother technology being unscrupulously marketed by a company that would like to put a chip in every one of us. It has no place on free American soil." Albrecht and her coauthor McIntyre are Christians who object to being chipped on religious grounds. But Albrecht does have a Harvard connection so perhaps we should take this with a grain of salt.

More discussion here.

15 comments:

David Thomson said...

The line must be drawn somewhere---and this is it! Human dignity demands no less. A law should also be passed to prohibit this practice if the story is indeed true.

Doug said...

I want my
Muslim Free Speech for Me (only)
chip, please!
---
OT, but classic:
Santorum,
At this point he launched into the most powerful part of his speech.

He told the crowd about an exchange he had on the Senate floor with Hillary Clinton during the partial birth abortion debate. Santorum was using pictures that illustrated the barbaric nature of the procedure when Clinton objected.
The junior Senator from New York complained that the pictures were inaccurate.

Where are the pictures of “fetuses” with “swollen heads” and other deformities, she asked. Santorum told Clinton that he would be happy to use pictures of pre-born babies with deformities but that frankly, it did not make a bit of difference because he saw no distinction, because, as he explained to the CPAC audience, conservatives “do not see the difference between a child with a disability and a perfectly formed child.”

Clinton insisted that women have the right to abort "fetuses" that suffer some sort of abnormality, but then finished by saying, “I want the record to be clear that I value every single person.”

Santorum: “I will let the record speak for itself.”

Indeed.
(Smartest politician on Earth, huh?)
http://www.townhall.com/blogs/capitolreport/TimChapman/story/2006/02/09/185937.html

Doug said...

Hillary Clinton, already on the campaign trail in front of the UAW Wednesday, contributed: "You cannot explain to me why we have not captured or killed the tallest man in Afghanistan."
Well for starters, he's probably not making phone calls.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110007944

terrye said...

Well that is just creepy. I have to say I think the hillbillies out here in the boonies will put up a fight.

RogerA said...

My concern is the RFID technology is a real concern--on the one hand it makes inventory control a snap and reduces consumer prices--on the other, it genuinely has some ominous consequences--I for one would want to put it on my great danes so if they ever wandered off, I could find them--on the other hand, I dont want it on me.

I think RFID technology is something that really needs to be looked at--I cant think of a technology that offers both benefits and risks in such a significant degree.

terrye said...

Roger:

I am sure some people like the idea of it where their kids are concerned too, but the whole idea is just spooky.

RogerA said...

Phooey--I just posted a comment--and then had an epiphany (reminder to self: Papa Murphey's chicken garlic pizza is NOT good for breakfast)

Think about what RFID can do: It can monitor your purchases at any store in the country--it can track your prescription drug use; it can discern your buying habits--it is genuinely the technology that comes closest to what George Orwell had in mind when he wrote 1984--and there is precious little understanding of, let alone policy implications discussion of the technology--if there was ever a topic that cried out for spotlighting: this is it.

OK--back to finishing that last piece of chicken garlic pizza

Specter said...

Hey SpeedPass, black boxes in cars, and OnStar are bad enough. We see tons of scifi movies about the dark side of humans using this type of technology to dominate others. It is as wrong as Hillary's national health plan...

David Thomson said...

I ordered a used copy from Amazon.com of "The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom?" by David Brin. It should be on my doorstep in a few more days.

RFID technology should significantly bring down prices to the consumer. It is my understanding that shoplifting will become almost nonexistent. If so, I am guessing that our purchases may become roughly four percent cheaper. I also will not hesitate to place a RFID chip in each of our cats. But in a human being? Well, what about a small child?

Doug said...

Hillary could have a special chip for "fetuses" w/swollen heads.
Get them FBI records off to an early start.

Doug said...

Rogera wants to set his poor mutts up for a beheading!
Allahu Akbark!

Doug said...

OnStar ads on the radio are bad enough:
Just what I want to hear at random moments: 911 Calls.
Then I'm pissed that I missed the volume control until after the agonized cry for help.

Peter UK said...

The dichotomy between Privacy and Freedom is a false one,privacy is a component of freedom,without which freedom is meaningless.
The first thing the totalitarian state will take away is privacy,where one lives,how much one spends,how one votes.
The prime example of this is gun control,first gun ownership is registered then ownership is restricted,then the guns are taken away.
The loss of privacy always foreshadows the loss of freedom.

Barry Dauphin said...

David T,

I read the Transparent Society a few years ago and think it is a pretty good book, and fairly well argued. Brin seems to lean more to being a proponent for much of this invasive technology as long as it is democratized, although he clearly points out many dangers. For example, he believes that there will be even more cameras all over the place monitoring public spaces and all be available on the internet, so that the average citizen is part of those who watch the watchers. He seems to say, if memory serves me, that resistance is futile, so that people should be for making it as open as possible, so that the monitoring function isn't only in the hands of a few. I'll be interested on your take when you have a chance to read it. He seems to understand the technology pretty well. His version of the Transparent Society is not that there is a Big Brother per se, but that we will all be Big Brother.

Seneca the Younger said...

Religious grounds?

Can anyone explain that one to me?