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.
9 comments:
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
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
Well that is just creepy. I have to say I think the hillbillies out here in the boonies will put up a fight.
Roger:
I am sure some people like the idea of it where their kids are concerned too, but the whole idea is just spooky.
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...
Hillary could have a special chip for "fetuses" w/swollen heads.
Get them FBI records off to an early start.
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.
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.
Religious grounds?
Can anyone explain that one to me?
Post a Comment