In another thread, Billy Jean made a comment about technology bringing us one step closer to being 'chipped'. With the ever-increasing kidnapping and child endangerment that we hear about on the radio every day, the "Amber Alerts", etc. is it really such a bad idea to consider implanting temporary chips into minors so that they can be easily located if they are kidnapped, etc?

After all, we do it to our dogs. Aren't the kids more important than dogs? Wouldn't the ability to locate a kidnapped child anywhere on the planet from satellite be handy? And the chips could be deactivated when they reach 18.

Thoughts?

I would put one in my kid. Heck, I'd put one in myself too. I'm all for tracking devices period. It's soooo star trekky.

The Vera Chip is already being tested on some civilians and being marketed on the fear of parents loosing their children. I think that the chip is an awful idea and would have long term implications would do more harm than good.

First it was the Social Security Number, then mandatory Drivers Licence and then the final result would be the chip. If you would allow that to happen, we would be nothing more than an ITEM ourselves, easily tacked and contained. In theory, the chip would be great for making sure that our children are safe, but would you, as an adult, want to be tracked and monitored more so than you already are?

Yes, yes I would. I have absolutely nothing to hide. I follow the law, I don't even speed on the freeway. The benefit of knowing that someone can find me somewhere in Yosemite Park when I'm lost far outweighs knowing that someone can see my little blinking dot on a screen no matter where I am.

I vote Good Idea because, if a child is kidnapped, time is not with you. Within possibly 24 hours, the child could be raped and then killed. With a chip, a few clicks of a computer keyboard will show you where the child is located and you can find him/her before anything happens

I want want the option to have them put in me and my family, but I would write letters to lawmakers till the cows come home if they become mandatory for all Americans.

As I said, it would need to be a chip that can be deactivated when you reach a certain age, if you choose to have it turned off. While I don't have a problem with people knowing where I am, I understand that there are some really paranoid people out there.

I'm still a minor, and I would protest to no end if my parents randomly decided to get a chip put in me so I wouldn't get lost. Or something. Personally, I would feel it was an invasion of my privacy (though in some cases, it is a good idea to be able to track your kids down.) If I ever have kids, though I want them to be safe, I don't know if I could have them implanted with a chip. But if other people want to do it with their kids, that's their decision. I guess I feel that the chip implantation should be an option if people decide they want it, but in no way should it be mandatory.

There is a problem. Deactivating it would require surgery. Not every American family can afford a surgery unless it is done by just taking it out from the base of the back of your neck by making a small hole that is cut

Another idea that freaks me out. Again, this is simply too easy for the governmentto make use of against its citizens. Who wants to bet that "deactivated" chips would really be tracked all the time? Or, if they are physically removed, there seem to be only two possibilities. Either fairly serious surgery would be required to put these things in or take them out, which doesn't seem to be a good idea. Or, if they are easy to take out, this seems to defeat the purpose of them. Better, I would think, to have the parent provide the child with some kind of GPS system for the parent (not the government) to use in an emergency.

Unless you actually implant a device into the child an assailant can just throw the device away so a GPS would be a good idea for you to transmit where you are if you are lost somewhere and on your own, but the chip works in the same way as a locater for you all the time and is much more difficult to remove. I think that one day everyone will walk around with multiple chips in them to do all sorts of things and I am not too keen on having surgery so that anyone can find out where I am whenever, I find mobile phones annoying and don't have one because I think it defeats the point of going out where you can't be contacted and if you make one chip you'll make ten more that record what you say, video you moves, act as a mobile phone etc.

Also, how do the chips being discussed work. do they broadcast a signal or does the satelite do that and recognise the chip. I am wary of any form of foreign signal generators as most things are found to have all sorts of effects of the human body with so many frequencies that we use for various functions.

It would be a good way to catch criminals but then just like in 'minority report' where the guy gets a new pair of eyes you could just have your chip removed or alter the signal of someone elses chip to fake that it was you.
It may solve many problems but would be a huge expense and never be made law to have one implanted.

That's one of the many bugs that need to be worked out in the scheme



Just like a normal GPS system. A sattelite signal that beams itself to the chip and the main computer

Maybe instead of that put a chip into people on parole for committing crimes (kidnapping, sex offenses etc.)...as a way of tracking their behavior if questions arise...it could work in their favor or against. Say a crime is committed and they are a suspect if the chip shows that they were not in the area at the time it would keep them from being falsely acused or if they were in the vicinity of the crime then it would help to provide evidence. My bet is fewer people would leave their parole areas and there would be fewer problems with paroled criminals.

In general I am really against this idea, for similar reasons to those victoria listed. I definitely wouldn't want a chip even though I have nothing to hide.

I had an identi-kid card done on our daughter. That's a nice thing.

It is interesting that those who don't want the government in our private business would consider embedding microchips in our bodies as more of a safety measure and not be concerned with the Big Brother implications.

I, too, am a person who does not commit crimes. That does not mean that I want my life laid open to government officials any time they want to know where I am or what books I am reading or who my friends are. They have enough information if they care to use it.

(As an aside: Last night on CNN there was a report that 9 agencies connected to the Homeland Security Department had generated some 20 separate lists of people whom they are investigating. When asked why they can't collate these lists and have the same names for everyone, an official said that a policeman did not need to know a person who was of importance to an ambassador; all names would not be within a particular agency's purview. This is a load of horse hockey. If that policeman saw a person of interest whom he might not be able to pick up, he could still have his boss give a heads-up to the State Department, and possibly save that agency some time and leg work. Honestly!!! Such short-sightedness...)

Anyway, the parenthetical aside demonstrates that the government has all kinds of information at its disposal. But if it is in fact able to use it is the crucial question. In the meantime, much of the information may be used the wrong way by unscrupulous individuals with relative impunity until the agency in question gets its act together.

It is not the business of my government to babysit my daughter or to know her whereabouts at any given time. It is my responsibility. It has been the responsibility of the parents for as long as there has been a human race. It would be nice if once again the whole "village" raised a child, but in the meantime, parents must fulfill their responsibilities. There will be no microchip implantation in my child.

It is also interesting that a person who would object to children wearing uniforms in school because it cramped their individual expression would have no problem with a microchip barcode being implanted in their child. Does that make sense?