I have no problem with using technology to monitor for medical conditions,
as it might save many lives. But it must be voluntary; not enforced by the
state, ie. down to individual responsibility.

The government has no right to restrict our freedom to live life to the
full, even if that involves risky behaviour. We have to accept that life is
inherently risky, and take full responsibility for our own actions. Safety
can never reach 100%. If we try to achieve this then nothing will ever get
done. Well before that point, the economy will have been utterly destroyed.

--
"Let Darwin decide."

In alt.conspiracy, Dave
<dwickford@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 5 Jan 2007 12:46:47 -0800
<1168030007.666076.50430@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

In order to do this correctly one would have to have
a large distributed database.  This database would be
responsible for tracking where the chip is, and whether
the substances within one's body are legal within the
locality within which the chip is currently sitting.

For example, apparently some areas of the Eastern
seaboard are still quite "dry", and one could in theory
arrest anyone consuming alcohol therein.  Of course the
police would have the interesting task of attempting
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 0.10%
level shown by the chip was caused by consumption in
the county/parish/borough/precinct, and not because
someone just had a bender in the neighboring non-dry
county/parish/borough/precinct.  (Assuming there's no
calibration issues.)

There are also designer drug issues.  Suppose a brand new
(but highly addictive) chemical substance is discovered
tomorrow, and made illegal the day after.  How would the
detectors already in the field be programmed to detect it
and alert the authorities?

Anyone *without* a chip, of course, would be shot on
sight -- with a tranquillizer dart (Animal Control would
be responsible for this, for various rather odd reasons).
The person would be determined to be human (probably by the
shooter), bundled into an ambulance, chipped in a hospital,
identified, billed, and released.

The chip would also serve as an access to one's bank
account.  Basically, no cards would be needed; one
simply walks into a store, and walks out again with
an RFID-tagged item through the store's main security
detectors.  The store deactivates the RFID and debits
one's account.  The store also has the option of charging
various prices depending on one's demographics (picked up
from the distributed database) -- or the store can simply
file a theft charge and alert the local authorities, who
could easily pick up the individual by listening to his
tracking signal.

In short, if you're rich, expect to pay more; if you're poor,
expect to be hassled.  But never mind all that -- isn't this
newfangled technology thingy great? :-)

actually, the technology itself is not that new.
my sister had a ostrich farm, all the animals had implants to track
them in case they got out, also for "which on is which" and when thier
last shots were etc....

unfortunately, this technolgy can also be used by Big Brother to track
what you are doing, and when you are doing it.
already starting to get cameras on the street corners, and with the
patriot act they can find out what book you checked out etc...
Brad
http://911review.org
http://911review.stumbleupon.com/
http://computersbybrad.batcave.net/

Good ideas -- the only problem is that we cannot trust the overseers.

For example, a pizza-delivery man was recently captured and fitted with
a collar-bomb that blew his head off after he failed to rob a bank for the
perpetrators.

It would be just a matter of time before the overseers used the implants
to turn subjects into complete slaves, with no chance of escape.  Penalties
for disobedience would range from pain to death.

Beyond implants, subjects might be fitted with devices that record or
control everything they see, think, say, or do.