NationStates Jolt Archive

So, this is a thread to discuss what your reaction would be to finding out that you or your children have been implanted (by the government, for the claimed purpose of reducing crime) with some sort of tracking device (24/7 monitoring), without your knowledge or consent. Would you be mad about it, or would you be ok with it?

Personally, I'd be livid about it, and wouldn't let it go until the government gave me restitution for forcing this on me.

ETA: Please keep this clean of discussion on the feasibility of the technology or implanting people without their knowledge/consent.

I'd do some home-based surgery to get the fucking thing out. Creeeeepy!

I'd do some home-based surgery to get the fucking thing out. Creeeeepy!

I'd probably try to use some household appliance (such as a microwave) to fry the electronics and make it nonfunctional.

Barring that, I would got to a doctor to get it removed. I can't stand to cut into myself.

I'd do some home-based surgery to get the fucking thing out. Creeeeepy!

I'd probably try to use some household appliance (such as a microwave) to fry the electronics and make it nonfunctional.

Barring that, I would got to a doctor to get it removed. I can't stand to cut into myself.

And organized crime happens upon another cash cow: Illegal Implant Removal.

I'd probably try to use some household appliance (such as a microwave) to fry the electronics and make it nonfunctional.

Barring that, I would got to a doctor to get it removed. I can't stand to cut into myself.

You'd rather stick one of your appendages into a microwave than cut the chip out? Ewwww!

I'd probably try to use some household appliance (such as a microwave) to fry the electronics and make it nonfunctional.

Barring that, I would got to a doctor to get it removed. I can't stand to cut into myself.

A stun gun/tazer could probably fry the tracker well enough. So we could just hire LG to search us all out and taze us, bro.

depends...

How did they insert it without my knowledge?
How did I find out?

You'd rather stick one of your appendages into a microwave than cut the chip out? Ewwww!

Well I was thinking I would actually pull out the microwave generator and just hold it up to the chip.

However, a stun gun to the arm (or wherever the chip is located) would work too. Hell, would probably work better.

You'd rather stick one of your appendages into a microwave than cut the chip out? Ewwww!

A few seconds is usually enough, and won't cause any more sensation than putting your limb near a fire. You'll get some prickly heat, but that's about it.

depends...

How did they insert it without my knowledge?
How did I find out?

Maybe you got tracked during a doctor's visit, or maybe it was when you were a newborn, etc.

Maybe it was discovered on an X-Ray, or maybe the injection site got infected, or something else.

A few seconds is usually enough, and won't cause any more sensation than putting your limb near a fire. You'll get some prickly heat, but that's about it.Okay well fair enough, that creeps me out way more than cutting into myself, but it's not necessarily rational, so I get his aversion.

Okay well fair enough, that creeps me out way more than cutting into myself, but it's not necessarily rational, so I get his aversion.

Well, I've seen some shit you probably don't want to hear about, and when I even think about cutting into my own skin (like when I read your response), it all kind of floods into my mind and makes me freak out a little bit.

Strangely, though, it doesn't bother me to think of someone else cutting into my skin - even without anesthetic.

Curious.

Maybe you got tracked during a doctor's visit, or maybe it was when you were a newborn, etc.

Maybe it was discovered on an X-Ray, or maybe the injection site got infected, or something else.

oh... then I'd probably just shrug it off.

or if it was damaged... then ask if I can choose the next location site... :p

If the injection site got infected... then the Gov gets the bill.

This thread has been posted, with the same options, in the other NSG.

I will provide periodic updates to the voting results.

I'm all for removing it, but don't you think the .gov would notice when you removed your tracking tag?

Personally, I'd find out who I had to pay off to get the KMA code on it.

And organized crime happens upon another cash cow: Illegal Implant Removal.

Organized crime usually isn't that stupid.

I'm all for removing it, but don't you think the .gov would notice when you removed your tracking tag?

Personally, I'd find out who I had to pay off to get the KMA code on it.

not if you implant it in something else...

like say... a cat or rat? :D

"Apparently Lacadaemon loves to hang out in the sewers under 4th and Main... "

not if you implant it in something else...

like say... a cat or rat? :D

"Apparently Lacadaemon loves to hang out in the sewers under 4th and Main... "

Just a guess here, but I imagine the first time I use my debit card while said rat is some distance away enjoying the culinary offerings of the local trash dump, the government surveillance net would be onto my wacky scheme.

Just a guess here, but I imagine the first time I use my debit card while said rat is some distance away enjoying the culinary offerings of the local trash dump, the government surveillance net would be onto my wacky scheme.

Claim it must have fallen out, and a rat must have eaten it. Since you didn't know you'd been implanted with the tracking device in the first place, you couldn't possibly know it had fallen out.

Claim it must have fallen out, and a rat must have eaten it. Since you didn't know you'd been implanted with the tracking device in the first place, you couldn't possibly know it had fallen out.

We are talking about a government that implants people to track them here. I am not so sure they would be all that interested in my 'excuses'.

We are talking about a government that implants people to track them here. I am not so sure they would be all that interested in my 'excuses'.

Honestly though, since the whole program would be illegal, what would they do?

Claim it must have fallen out, and a rat must have eaten it. Since you didn't know you'd been implanted with the tracking device in the first place, you couldn't possibly know it had fallen out.

You know, I've reconsidered. Let's suppose I wanted to kill someone. What should I do? This tracking device tracks my whereabouts the whole time, even when I want to kill someone.

What's the best thing to do?

See, the best would be to go to an underground doctor who will remove it. Then, put it in my pocket and let them track me home. I could then tape the chip to my dog's collar, leave, and go murder this person.

Since I would get a dog that roams around a lot, the chip would record me roaming about my home while I was actually out murdering someone a few blocks away.

Presto: instant alibi, courtesy of the government.

I would be absolutely furious. Absolutely furious. There would be hell to pay. Any government that started doing such thing doesn't deserve to exist any longer.

You know, I've reconsidered. Let's suppose I wanted to kill someone. What should I do? This tracking device tracks my whereabouts the whole time, even when I want to kill someone.

What's the best thing to do?

See, the best would be to go to an underground doctor who will remove it. Then, put it in my pocket and let them track me home. I could then tape the chip to my dog's collar, leave, and go murder this person.

Since I would get a dog that roams around a lot, the chip would record me roaming about my home while I was actually out murdering someone a few blocks away.

Presto: instant alibi, courtesy of the government.

You scare me with your deviousness. :eek:

Just a guess here, but I imagine the first time I use my debit card while said rat is some distance away enjoying the culinary offerings of the local trash dump, the government surveillance net would be onto my wacky scheme.

or... you can claim then that your credit card/identity was stolen and get reimbursed for it. ;)

then again, they would have to find you first! :D

could be worse tho. you could have the chip embedded in a bird that migrates to Nigeria!

You scare me with your deviousness. :eek:

Sorry. I think this way all the time. I can't help it, really.

Honestly though, since the whole program would be illegal, what would they do?

Well I think they've already demonstrated their lack of interest in pettifogging bureaucratic rules. I imagine they'd off me.

I guess I'd end up like a fannie mae executive.

You know, I've reconsidered. Let's suppose I wanted to kill someone. What should I do? This tracking device tracks my whereabouts the whole time, even when I want to kill someone.

What's the best thing to do?

See, the best would be to go to an underground doctor who will remove it. Then, put it in my pocket and let them track me home. I could then tape the chip to my dog's collar, leave, and go murder this person.

Since I would get a dog that roams around a lot, the chip would record me roaming about my home while I was actually out murdering someone a few blocks away.

Presto: instant alibi, courtesy of the government.

I like how you think...

Well I think they've already demonstrated their lack of interest in pettifogging bureaucratic rules. I imagine they'd off me.

I guess I'd end up like a fannie mae executive.

I'm not so sure. There could be many reasons the implants fail or fall out (time being one of them). If they killed everyone that had a bad or missing tracker, soon they'd have nobody left. You could be right, though. :(

I like how you think...

Scary, innit?

Scary, innit?

Scary?

no.


Inspiring?
hehehehehehehe
:D

Well I think they've already demonstrated their lack of interest in pettifogging bureaucratic rules. I imagine they'd off me.

I guess I'd end up like a fannie mae executive.

if they wanted to off you.. they wouldn't try to track you.

I'm not so sure. There could be many reasons the implants fail or fall out (time being one of them). If they killed everyone that had a bad or missing tracker, soon they'd have nobody left. You could be right, though. :(

These sorts usually think there are too many people in the first place. I'm sure it wouldn't bother them.

I'd do some home-based surgery to get the fucking thing out. Creeeeepy!

I'm going to go with this. Of course, having said that, all I can think of is that scene in Total Recall where Ah-nuld sticks that big metal hoopppajoo up his nose to remove the tracker that's been stuck in him. After the removal though, I would be...irate. There would be consequences visited.

Honestly though, since the whole program would be illegal, what would they do?

They'd 'black-bag' you, that's what they'd do.

Scary, innit?

Too predictable. What I would do, is bribe that underground doctor to give you a fake implant, and then use that implant to kill whoever it is who needs killing. Then I'd dump the implant in your house. Presto. Alibi and fall guy.

All it would take is a knife, knowledge of where it was implanted, and a decent tolerance of pain to remove the device. A good sense of humor decides where you put the device after it is removed.

Do they need to implant anything - carrying a mobile phone means they can do this anyway?

Do they need to implant anything - carrying a mobile phone means they can do this anyway?

Contrary to spy movies, tracking someone's location by their hand phone isn't as easy as it seems. Assuming the person is talking on the line, and you're tracing it, you can track the physical location down to the signal tower, but that's it. Unless phones are contacting three separate towers these days to send a call, they can't triangulate your position, and even then would require a bit of guesswork based on how strong the signal is on all three towers.

Now if they had agents on the field, who were tracking your specific call, and using mobile signal intercept platforms, they'd be able to track you a bit better since they can follow your signal source then. But that takes a dedicated team who is already on site.

I would put on a Guy Fawkes mask and start trying to take down the oppressive fascist government.

The scary thing is, I could actually imagine the government trying to suggest this

Contrary to spy movies, tracking someone's location by their hand phone isn't as easy as it seems. .

Actually it is...particularly now phones have gps

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/feb/01/news.g2

Much more than just location
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8053178.stm

Actually it is...particularly now phones have gps

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/feb/01/news.g2

Much more than just location
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8053178.stm

Hmm, interesting that. I'll have to check the model and see if it's unique to that, or phones these days do send to multiple towers or there's something else to it.

Honestly though, since the whole program would be illegal, what would they do?
Lock you up for life in Abi Ghraib.

Contrary to spy movies, tracking someone's location by their hand phone isn't as easy as it seems.
Yes, it's much, much easier.

Unless phones are contacting three separate towers these days to send a call, they can't triangulate your position, and even then would require a bit of guesswork based on how strong the signal is on all three towers.
First of all, you don't need to send a call. The cell phone is being tracked all the time while it's on, so the system knows which stations to use if you have an incoming call.

Second, you don't need three towers. Every cell station knows your distance to it and your angle to it. It's not as accurate as GPS, but it's accurate enough.

Third, they are already obliged by law to be able to and to locate every phone that sends an emergency signal.

All the FBI has to do to track your phone is to call the cell company and ask them to share the data with the bureau. They don't need to set up anything, you're already being tracked.

I just wouldn't let it happen.

Related news today. Police with cameres in their helmets have began following those who have been convicted in the past of burglary. They have sent letters to several of these people warning them what is going to happen. They of course have kicked up a big stink, but early results look like 100% non re-offeding.

Bloody great idea.

First of all, you don't need to send a call. The cell phone is being tracked all the time while it's on, so the system knows which stations to use if you have an incoming call.

Second, you don't need three towers. Every cell station knows your distance to it and your angle to it. It's not as accurate as GPS, but it's accurate enough.


The first, I won't disagree with on some consideration. The second, I was not sure of. Angle from cell station I already knew (else why would I mention three towers for triangulation), but was not sure if it could detect distance as well to any real degree of accuracy if they used weakness of return signal as an indicator or something else.


Third, they are already obliged by law to be able to and to locate every phone that sends an emergency signal.


Was referring to technical ability, not legal.

In either case, this scenario encompasses people without phones, or those who leave it off unless making a call.

The first, I won't disagree with on some consideration. The second, I was not sure of. Angle from cell station I already knew (else why would I mention three towers for triangulation),
There's not really a need for three towers - two are completely sufficient. That can be done even with just one, but with either lower accuracy or modern equipment. The antenna arrays can find the angle precisely from the phase shift.


but was not sure if it could detect distance as well to any real degree of accuracy if they used weakness of return signal as an indicator or something else.
The method is similar to that used in a laser rangefinder. The tower sends out a signal, and the cell phone responds. Since it's known how much time it takes the phone to respond, and the speed of light is known, the timing of the return signal determines the distance.


Was referring to technical ability, not legal.
Well - the law requires the communication providers to have the technical ability if they want to operate. So they have it.


In either case, this scenario encompasses people without phones, or those who leave it off unless making a call.
The point was perhaps that there are very few such people, and so the government doesn't have the need to implant trackers into the general populace, as it can already track them by their phone.

I'm presuming that these are RFIDs of some sort, and that they're implanted in the majority of the population.

I'd work out a way of overwriting them, and of reading them remotely - both are quite possible. Then I'd mount this on a car, or in a bin, or under a bench. Everyone who walks past has their identity nicked, and someone else's identity written onto their chip. In about one day, the whole system is useless.

Edit: Even without being able to detect angle, it's still trivially easy to track a mobile phone. Detecting distance from the tower is easy, which fixes the phone's location into a circle. Then you just look for the points where it changes towers - you know it has to be basically equidistant from them. Using these fixed points, the distances, and a streetmap or similar, you can reconstruct the motion of the phone.

A stun gun/tazer could probably fry the tracker well enough. So we could just hire LG to search us all out and taze us, bro.

I would reluctantly accept that assignment, And by reluctantly, I mean enthusiastically. :)

I'd raise absolute hell. I'd send copies of whatever evidence has lead me to conclude that this think exists and was planted by the government to every news agency I could get hold of and all the opposition parties in government.
I'd do some home-based surgery to get the fucking thing out. Creeeeepy!
I'd try an actual doctor before I went digging around in myself.
A stun gun/tazer could probably fry the tracker well enough. So we could just hire LG to search us all out and taze us, bro.
Hire him? He'd pay us to let him do it.
Organized crime usually isn't that stupid.
If it was smart it'd be a corporation. :wink:
I just wouldn't let it happen.

Related news today. Police with cameres in their helmets have began following those who have been convicted in the past of burglary. They have sent letters to several of these people warning them what is going to happen. They of course have kicked up a big stink, but early results look like 100% non re-offeding.

Bloody great idea.

If I knew a cop was going to be following me around with a camera, I'd walk around with as little clothes on as possible. Just enough tape to keep me on this side of indecent exposure.

The point was perhaps that there are very few such people, and so the government doesn't have the need to implant trackers into the general populace, as it can already track them by their phone.Not those that break the law though. precisely those don't do it :p

If I knew a cop was going to be following me around with a camera, I'd walk around with as little clothes on as possible. Just enough tape to keep me on this side of indecent exposure.

Ahhh but would you commit burglery?:D

I would reluctantly accept that assignment, And by reluctantly, I mean enthusiastically. :)

and by Reluctantly... you are also referring your desire to stop pushing that tazer button... :D

If I knew a cop was going to be following me around with a camera, I'd walk around with as little clothes on as possible. Just enough tape to keep me on this side of indecent exposure.

you know that will just keep the cop following you as you have to remove the tape sometime...

An implanted tracking chip implanted in secret to monitor a citizen's movement? Sounds pretty damn unconstitutional to me...

you know that will just keep the cop following you as you have to remove the tape sometime...

Yup, when I get home.

the government would just lose all my details on some laptop that goes missing

...and then the identity thieves strike at large

All it would take is a knife, knowledge of where it was implanted, and a decent tolerance of pain to remove the device. A good sense of humor decides where you put the device after it is removed.

and what if the chip is in your brain :p

and what if the chip is in your brain :p
Then you'll need a drill or saw as well.

Then you'll need a drill or saw as well.

A penny and a light socket sounds like a less dangerous prospect than self surgery on your brain.

A penny and a light socket would be a less dangerous prospect than self surgery on your brain.

"they" would surely insulate the chip seeing as how crazy shit like being exposed to gamma rays and the like are not uncommon

hell put one in your heart and lets see if you dare frying that

"they" would surely insulate the chip seeing as how crazy shit like being exposed to gamma rays and the like are not uncommon

hell put one in your heart and lets see if you dare frying that

Pfft. Use a defibrillator.

First shot stops your heart and kills the chip. Second shot starts it pumping again.

There might be a market for clothing that acted as a Faraday cage. Maybe those tin foil hats might actually work...

There might be a market for clothing that acted as a Faraday cage. Maybe those tin foil hats might actually work...

I'd buy it. The only thing is, I don't like hats (of any sort, unless it's REALLY cold out).

Last time I used a tracking device one someone I had a restraining order field against me.

Last time I used a tracking device one someone I had a restraining order field against me.

That's because you called me every time I was within a mile of you, asking if we could meet, you needy bastard.

That's because you called me every time I was within a mile of you, asking if we could meet, you needy bastard.

lol. I swear I thought that was another person's purse and cell phone though .

lol. I swear I thought that was another person's purse and cell phone though .

That was your excuse the first time. What about every time after that?

And it's not a purse. It's a fanny pack ya bastard.

That was your excuse the first time. What about every time after that?

And it's not a purse. It's a fanny pack ya bastard.

actully the second time it was that tiny back pack you wear.

It'd probably itch, and that'd probably drive me mad.

actully the second time it was that tiny back pack you wear.

Speaking of which, don't the terms or your restraining order prevent you from coming within 1 internet of me?

Organized crime would be offering underground services to either reprogram or remove these devices precisely 45 seconds after the government initiated the plan. The speed with which organized crime took advantage of Prohibition in the US should show you that there is always someone willing to make money helping people break the law.

Hmm, interesting that. I'll have to check the model and see if it's unique to that, or phones these days do send to multiple towers or there's something else to it.

I know my old phone had the option to constantly update, which meant it was always pinging local towers to find out where to route through.

Anyone who uses constant update features (which might not be optional anymore, I don't even know) is constantly sending out trackable data.

I just wouldn't let it happen.

Related news today. Police with cameres in their helmets have began following those who have been convicted in the past of burglary. They have sent letters to several of these people warning them what is going to happen. They of course have kicked up a big stink, but early results look like 100% non re-offeding.

Bloody great idea.

The government will never need to spy on people so long as it can get everyone to spy on everyone else for it.

I think I heard a line like that in the Simpsons once...

An implanted tracking chip implanted in secret to monitor a citizen's movement? Sounds pretty damn unconstitutional to me...

Curious - unconstitutional how?

Curious - unconstitutional how?

Invasion of privacy (4th amendment), and deprivation of life, liberty, or property (5th amendment).

Invasion of privacy (4th amendment), and deprivation of life, liberty, or property (5th amendment).

Hmm.

The fourth amendment only protects you against unreasonable search and seizure.

I'm sure cases could be made for why it was 'reasonable'.

Especially in these days, where the 'warrant' half of the fourth amendment has become optional.


The arguments against the fifth are probably easier - both for the 'due process' argument being so easily subverted, and due to the capacity to argue that life, liberty and property are unaffected by an RFID.

Hmm.

The fourth amendment only protects you against unreasonable search and seizure.

I'm sure cases could be made for why it was 'reasonable'.

Especially in these days, where the 'warrant' half of the fourth amendment has become optional.


The arguments against the fifth are probably easier - both for the 'due process' argument being so easily subverted, and due to the capacity to argue that life, liberty and property are unaffected by an RFID.

The fourth amendment reads, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". It's my right to keep private when I'm in my in my home (as well as what room), as well as whom I may be sharing my bedroom with. I also have a right to keep private whom I associate with when I'm in my home. If they feel the need to track my movements, they need probable cause to get a warrant. And cases could be made that it's unreasonable for the government's to know when I'm in my bedroom, and whom I may be sharing it with.

The fifth amendment reads, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation".

Again, without any sort of probable cause, they have no right to force an invasive medical procedure upon the entire populace. Unless the government wants to declare the entire US population enemy combatants.

Looking into things further, this could also be a first amendment violation, if someone has a religious reason for refusing medical treatments.

The fourth amendment reads, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". It's my right to keep private when I'm in my in my home (as well as what room), as well as whom I may be sharing my bedroom with. I also have a right to keep private whom I associate with when I'm in my home. If they feel the need to track my movements, they need probable cause to get a warrant. And cases could be made that it's unreasonable for the government's to know when I'm in my bedroom, and whom I may be sharing it with.

The fifth amendment reads, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation".

Again, without any sort of probable cause, they have no right to force an invasive medical procedure upon the entire populace. Unless the government wants to declare the entire US population enemy combatants.

Looking into things further, this could also be a first amendment violation, if someone has a religious reason for refusing medical treatments.

Wow. You completely ignored what I wrote.

I guess that lets me know how you're going to behave in this thread, too.

"they" would surely insulate the chip seeing as how crazy shit like being exposed to gamma rays and the like are not uncommon


The body might act as a shield against common radiation, but it wouldn't protect against anything like a cheap EPFG powered EM pulse. The chip on the other hand, can't be shielded and remain small enough to be implanted in your body without scooping out something important I wager. You can harden them with shielding, error correcting components or just plain redundancy, but that adds bulk.

Wow. You completely ignored what I wrote.

I guess that lets me know how you're going to behave in this thread, too.

I see YOU completely ignored what I wrote. I said a case could be made that it's unreasonable when I'm somewhere in my home, the government knows EXACTLY where I am (say, when I'm in my bedroom, sharing it with someone else). A warrant is not optional, it is still needed in most cases (except when the Patriot Act gets involved, and I doubt the government would declare the ENTIRE US population enemy combatants), . Implanting tracking devices in everyone would not stand. I also stated that the government has no right to force an invasive medical procedure on the ENTIRE population. Doing so could, in some circles, be considered similar to rape.

You also failed to address my first amendment concerns.

Post on an internet forum about how angry I am...but not actually do anything.

Post on an internet forum about how angry I am...but not actually do anything.

Pssh. I bet I could do less than that.

----------------
Now playing: Nightwish - Come Cover Me (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/nightwish/track/come+cover+me)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

How about a compromise ?
We just require these tracker chips in breast implants so I can use my cell phone to determine if a woman has fake boobs.

I would dig it out. If they showed up at my door to arrest me or implant a new one I'd hopefully not end up on AMW.

I would dig it out. If they showed up at my door to arrest me or implant a new one I'd hopefully not end up on AMW.

This is why I'd try to tell everyone about it before I take it out. If their conspiracy is fucked they'll be slightly less inclined to make me fall off the face of the Earth.

This is why I'd try to tell everyone about it before I take it out. If their conspiracy is fucked they'll be slightly less inclined to make me fall off the face of the Earth.

You'd have to show up on the news networks almost all the time. Some random yahoo yelling on the street isn't going to get much media attention, much less comment when a bunch of people drag him away. If you were in the media spotlight though, a noisy kill would be the worst thing to happen, since it would legitimize your claims in people's eyes. Of course it's easier for it to be legitimized since almost everyone else would have the same implants and be able to check.

You'd have to show up on the news networks almost all the time. Some random yahoo yelling on the street isn't going to get much media attention, much less comment when a bunch of people drag him away. If you were in the media spotlight though, a noisy kill would be the worst thing to happen, since it would legitimize your claims in people's eyes. Of course it's easier for it to be legitimized since almost everyone else would have the same implants and be able to check.

Well if I know I have this implant I figure its been found in an x-ray or something. Send copies of the results so I don't just look like a nut case.

I said a case could be made that it's unreasonable when I'm somewhere in my home, the government knows EXACTLY where I am (say, when I'm in my bedroom, sharing it with someone else).

You also failed to address my first amendment concerns.

As I pointed out the fourth amendment only protects you against UNREASONABLE search and seizure. And - since this technology would obviously be argued as reasonable, and since no search or seizure would take place (unless cause was presented, obviously) there is nothing the fourth amendment has to say that addresses it.

Your complaints that they'd know where you are - they can already do that. I don't see how you think you could defend 'they'd know where I am' as search or seizure, without either taking place.

And as far the idea that they'd be able to tell who was in the room with you, or whatever that point was supposed to be, the government could already track who you let into and out of your house, if it wanted, and with thermal imaging, they could tell a lot more than just who was in the room with you.

As for you First Amendment red herring:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Okay... we're not talking about 'making a law', we're talking about an implementation of a law.

It wouldn't make a law regarding establishment of religion or free exercise of one, it wouldn't abridge the freedom of speech, it wouldn't abridge the freedom of the press, it wouldn't abridge the right of people peacably to assemble, and it wouldn't abridge the right to petition the government for redress.

The First Amendment has nothing to say on the issue.

As I pointed out the fourth amendment only protects you against UNREASONABLE search and seizure. And - since this technology would obviously be argued as reasonable, and since no search or seizure would take place (unless cause was presented, obviously) there is nothing the fourth amendment has to say that addresses it.

Your complaints that they'd know where you are - they can already do that. I don't see how you think you could defend 'they'd know where I am' as search or seizure, without either taking place.

And as far the idea that they'd be able to tell who was in the room with you, or whatever that point was supposed to be, the government could already track who you let into and out of your house, if it wanted, and with thermal imaging, they could tell a lot more than just who was in the room with you.

As for you First Amendment red herring:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Okay... we're not talking about 'making a law', we're talking about an implementation of a law.

It wouldn't make a law regarding establishment of religion or free exercise of one, it wouldn't abridge the freedom of speech, it wouldn't abridge the freedom of the press, it wouldn't abridge the right of people peacably to assemble, and it wouldn't abridge the right to petition the government for redress.

The First Amendment has nothing to say on the issue.

How the hell would the implementation of this technology be argued as reasonable?

As to your thermal imaging mention, it may tell that someone is in the room with me, but it can't tell EXACTLY WHO is in the room with me. And they wouldn't be watching my house, or using thermal imaging to spy on me unless they had probable cause that I had or was about to commit a crime. With a tracking device implanted into everyone, they're circumventing the fourth amendment (an argument could be made that tracking everyone constitutes a search).

My first amendment concern is valid. The implantation of these tracking devices is an invasive medical procedure. Some religious faith groups avoid medical procedures because of their faith. Forcing them to be implanted with the tracking chip could be seen as abridging on the free exercise of their religion.

Since you won't listen to me though, maybe we can get Neo Art or Cat Tribes to weigh in on the constitutionality of implanting tracking devices into people without their knowledge or consent.

BTW, please check the poll, to see how people would feel about being implanted with trackers without their knowledge or consent. Remember, in the other thread, you stated that most people would be OK with it.

BTW, please check the poll, to see how people would feel about being implanted with trackers without their knowledge or consent. Remember, in the other thread, you stated that most people would be OK with it.

Most people would.

You're asking them how they'd react before the fact, whereas our conversation has consistently been about a fait accompli.

Most people would.

You're asking them how they'd react before the fact, whereas our conversation has consistently been about a fait accompli.

Actually, I asked them how they'd react after it having been implanted. I distinctly remember saying, "So, this is a thread to discuss what your reaction would be to finding out that you or your children have been implanted (by the government, for the claimed purpose of reducing crime) with some sort of tracking device (24/7 monitoring), without your knowledge or consent. Would you be mad about it, or would you be ok with it?".

I would not be cool with it, but wouldn't do anything. Under that kind of goverment complaining would be a bit supid. All I'd do is avoid socializing with known enemies of the state, and maybe stop setting fire to schools.

Actually, I asked them how they'd react...

Difficult concept, huh?

You can't get an accurate answer to a fait accompli, without the fait accompli.

The minority that didn't instantly tick the most over-reactive box, are probably the people that took a second to think about situations where they had actually been presented with that kind of choice.

You can't get an accurate answer to a fait accompli, without the fait accompli.


How would you feel about being shot? Don't answer, because your answer wouldn't be accurate before I shot you.

Difficult concept, huh?

You can't get an accurate answer to a fait accompli, without the fait accompli.

The minority that didn't instantly tick the most over-reactive box, are probably the people that took a second to think about situations where they had actually been presented with that kind of choice.

Sure you can. I know myself well enough to know how I would react to my rights being violated (which this concept does), and I'm pretty sure most people would know themselves well enough to answer accurately as well.

I'd do some home-based surgery to get the fucking thing out. Creeeeepy!
^ This.
Then I would employ my mad ninja skillz and Matrix-bullet time abilities to find them all and make them pay....

"That's six million dollars storage fee, ya bastard."

Again, without any sort of probable cause, they have no right to force an invasive medical procedure upon the entire populace.

what if it's NON-invasive? say, like putting something in the water they give you to drink?

or what if you signed a contract that grants them permission. How many people actually read that EULA? :D

what if it's NON-invasive? say, like putting something in the water they give you to drink?

or what if you signed a contract that grants them permission. How many people actually read that EULA? :D

Seriously, you wouldn't notice a rigid object at the bottom of the glass? Also, an implant like that would be pooped out eventually.

As to the EULA suggestion, maybe Neo Art or Cat Tribes can answer that one.

Seriously, you wouldn't notice a rigid object at the bottom of the glass? Also, an implant like that would be pooped out eventually.thinking along the lines of a radioactive tracer in the water. Implanted tracker doesn't have to be big. Nanotechs may also be used.

then there is fillings for teeth, glasses, etc...

As to the EULA suggestion, maybe Neo Art or Cat Tribes can answer that one.
that was a joke. :p

How would you feel about being shot? Don't answer, because your answer wouldn't be accurate before I shot you.

I've been shot at. I didn't like it.

Based on that experience, I probably wouldn't like being shot.


Now, when you run around and collect the stories of all those people on this site that have been RF tagged, we'll have some sort of comparison.

Seriously, you wouldn't notice a rigid object at the bottom of the glass? Also, an implant like that would be pooped out eventually.

As to the EULA suggestion, maybe Neo Art or Cat Tribes can answer that one.

This is called 'avoiding the question'.

Given the situation, as cited, what would your answer be?

I've been shot at. I didn't like it.

Based on that experience, I probably wouldn't like being shot.

I've been shot. I guarantee neither you nor anyone else on this board would like it.

I have however been followed by a person tracking my whereabouts, and I would view an RF tag as irritating as a person following me tracking my whereabouts. Based on the fact that I view them similarly, I find RF tagging to be very distasteful.

I also attempted to lose the tail, as I would attempt to deactivate or remove the RF chip.

I've been shot at. I didn't like it.

Based on that experience, I probably wouldn't like being shot.

Shot. Not shot at. Different experience. It's not fait accompli yet. And then there all the different locations you can be shot. Groin, lungs, fingers, palm, nose, eyes, ears.

We must test it thoroughly to get accurate data. Who knows, you might like it.

Shot. Not shot at. Different experience.


That's why I said 'shot at'. If I'd been shot, I'd have said 'shot', but I haven't - so I said I'd been 'shot at'. I was pretty explicit about that.

That's why I said 'shot at'. If I'd been shot, I'd have said 'shot', but I haven't - so I said I'd been 'shot at'. I was pretty explicit about that.

Hence why you must be shot, preferably somewhere vital, to determine your actual opinion to being shot. Anything else is baseless conjecture.

This is called 'avoiding the question'.

Given the situation, as cited, what would your answer be?

Well, my answer would be, that even once I agreed to the EULA, as soon as they attempted to implant me with the tracker (or once I found out they already used that agreement as consent to chip me), I would reinstate my inalienable rights and refuse the procedure (or force them to remove the chip).

I'd have it removed and implanted in a bird, then I'd get my rifle and start the revolution.

I'd have it removed and implanted in a bird, then I'd get my rifle and start the revolution.

Could be fun, but it might be easier to use a mouse or rat (unless you're going to buy a bird from the pet store, and release it afterward).

Could be fun, but it might be easier to use a mouse or rat (unless you're going to buy a bird from the pet store, and release it afterward).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53ARrp7x4bQ

Could be fun, but it might be easier to use a mouse or rat (unless you're going to buy a bird from the pet store, and release it afterward).

No, pet store birds are more likely to have their wings preclipped. It has to be able to fly. Gives new meaning to wild goose chase.

I'd do some home-based surgery to get the fucking thing out. Creeeeepy!

I'd wear a tinfoil dress, then file an accusation against the cabinet and the doctors who made the implant (ranging from abusive surgery, permanent injuries, perjury, violation of privacy laws, violation of various articles of the Constitution...).

Well, my answer would be, that even once I agreed to the EULA, as soon as they attempted to implant me with the tracker (or once I found out they already used that agreement as consent to chip me), I would reinstate my inalienable rights and refuse the procedure (or force them to remove the chip).

What 'inalienable rights'?

What 'inalienable rights'?

Well, my inalienable rights to my body, what medical procedures I'm subjected to, and what goes into/stays in my body.

Well, my inalienable rights to my body, what medical procedures I'm subjected to, and what goes into/stays in my body.

Ah. Random made-up shit. Glad I didn't waste any time on a response, now.

Ah. Random made-up shit. Glad I didn't waste any time on a response, now.

Ah. So you also give up your right not to be shot, as it is, by your claim, random made-up shit. I shall make the arrangements.

Ah. Random made-up shit. Glad I didn't waste any time on a response, now.

I don't have the right to decide what happens to my body, what goes into it, and what surgeries I'm subjected to? Does that mean that rape isn't against the law? What about murder? Assault? Can a doctor remove my organs without my consent?

The only waste of time here is mine, in listening to your argument that the government has the right to do this, and that this would be a good thing to curb crime. You ignore facts and anything that doesn't support your Orwellian hope.

I'd do some home-based surgery to get the fucking thing out. Creeeeepy!
It's in your brain and you only have a spoon! :eek:

It's in your brain and you only have a spoon! :eek:

That's what tinfoil hats are for.