What will you do when the microchip becomes mainstream?

[Sharpe]

So... you can't travel at all and aren't an official citizen of your government? I can understand apprehension about being implanted with an ID chip, but no form of ID at all? That just sounds beyond crazy to me.

I have a passport, a driving license and a National Insurance number. Why would I need an ID card?

 

[Bajaratt]

I have a passport, a driving license and a National Insurance number. Why would I need an ID card?

ID stands for Identification, all of those are valid forms of ID; therefore you already have 3 ID cards. The only thing that introducing a new "card" would do is combine all of those into a single card and store some extra info, such as medical information.

 

[Daveman]

ID stands for Identification, all of those are valid forms of ID; therefore you already have 3 ID cards. The only thing that introducing a new "card" would do is combine all of those into a single card and store some extra info, such as medical information.

None of those should be the buisness of the goverment as a whole I think. Driving licence only matters if you're actively driving a car, insurance only if something needing it happens, passport only if you're crossing a border.

The important part is, no one can ever demand to see ID.

 

[Bajaratt]

None of those should be the buisness of the goverment as a whole I think. Driving licence only matters if you're actively driving a car, insurance only if something needing it happens, passport only if you're crossing a border.

The important part is, no one can ever demand to see ID.

Government is the only one who should have the ability to issue out passports or driver's liscenses; and since I don't know the purpose of the national insurance card other than to assume it's for socialized health care, I'm going to just replace that with a social security card since I know a little more about those. All of those should only be regulated by the government, and a RFID would consolidate all of those into 1 object, be it a microchip implanted in the body or a card you put in your wallet. So as long as you don't go anywhere or need any government help, no one cares about your ID, same thing would apply with a RFID tag.

I have no clue what that "no one can ever demand to see ID" is supposed to mean, since there's so many places that check ID already. A microchip imbeded in the body would also cut down on people with false ID's, unless they're willing/able to have multiple RFID chips inserted/removed from their body.

 

[Sharpe]

ID stands for Identification, all of those are valid forms of ID; therefore you already have 3 ID cards. The only thing that introducing a new "card" would do is combine all of those into a single card and store some extra info, such as medical information.

Also my fingerprints, a retinal scan, i'd need to carry it with me at all times or I could be arrested. Amongst other things.

 

[Marajade]

Also my fingerprints, a retinal scan, i'd need to carry it with me at all times or I could be arrested. Amongst other things.

You're thinking Biometrics, not an ID card.
And some countries are thinking about making the switch to Biometric cards, because its a definate way to prove someone is who they say they are. I'd love a single card that takes care of all the information i'd ever need.

 

[Sharpe]

You're thinking Biometrics, not an ID card.
And some countries are thinking about making the switch to Biometric cards, because its a definate way to prove someone is who they say they are. I'd love a single card that takes care of all the information i'd ever need.

I dont trust our governement to carry all that information about me and not have it hacked/lose it. The computer systems they use for the welfare state are awful and don't work half the time. Also I don't see why I should have to carry this card on pain of being arrested.

 

[Marajade]

I dont trust our governement to carry all that information about me and not have it hacked/lose it. The computer systems they use for the welfare state are awful and don't work half the time. Also I don't see why I should have to carry this card on pain of being arrested.

The government has that information already. And it doesnt matter what happens on thier side, all the information will be in this ID card. Its not connected to some magic database somewhere. A scanner reads the card and displays the information on it, whether it be your Birth Certificate, Drivers Licence, or what medication you're alergic to.

And as for carrying it with you all the time, You should always have ID on you regardless of it being required or not.

 

[Sharpe]

And as for carrying it with you all the time, You should always have ID on you regardless of it being required or not.

Why should I always have ID on me? Also why should I go to prison for not carrying one of their ID cards, either way I can't see them being introduced as both opposition parties and half of the government are against them.

 

[Stouter]

Who said anything about prison for not having ID? You simply won't be able to do anything that requires your proof of age/identity without one. Why should you always have an ID on you at all times? Because things can happen unexpectedly. You step out into the street and get hit by a car, and end up in the hospital. Would you rather be there as John Doe or have your next of kin contacted?

 

[crookedmidget]

I've read most of the posts here and have some general feedback for discussion. First of all, I think scruitny should be placed on how well the implimented technology works in attaining the goal. There are many reasons why RFID tags would be placed on you, but there are few reasons that would make implimentation of this technology successful in light of the desired goal. Maybe you'd want to use it for authentication of an individual. But if the chip can be rewritten and then you're somone else is not what I'd call a good solution. Maybe we'd store medical information on it. But would we want this information available to access when, say, we're going over documentation for medical insurance?

I'd encourage people to not think of how the technology is used today (intended use), but how it can be exploited tomorrow (unintended use).

I'd also encourage people to rethink how much money it takes to track one person or many people. Aggregating existing information is easy. It could be easily known where I was yesterday by looking at what cell tower my phone was using, what time my rewards card was used at the store, and what time my ATM card was used at the gas station. This isn't a real time of where I am, but with a little analysis of the infomation, I bet almost any Internet savvy teenager could tell you where I'll most likely be tomorrow @ 8AM, 12PM, and 8PM.

I'd also hold back any assumption of technologial limitations. While the intention of RFID tags reading was to be several inches, in reality, they're currently reading them from several feet. There's active research on extending this distance.

I'm glad to see this discussion happen, it's a topic that needs to be pondered in a very open and public way.

 

[Sneakypants]

Just to add something regarding what is a reasonable expectation for a government to have of its people...It is reasonable to ask the people to carry some form of ID and to present it (be that a card or an implant). It is unreasonable to require implants in everyone, or to slowly shape, through litigation and precedent, that everyone is expected to have an implant ID based on a legal requirement.

ID is ID. People should still have a choice.
"Mainstream" I can handle. Having my choices taken from me would be unacceptable.

 

[Sharpe]

Who said anything about prison for not having ID?

My governement.

 

[Daveman]

I have no clue what that "no one can ever demand to see ID" is supposed to mean, since there's so many places that check ID already.

Was thinking along the line of a police officer, not a waiter after you order some beer.

Also The driver licnence, social security, and passport, are all handled from different parts of the goverment, not a central body, having a single id card would require it to be a centralized thing from the federal goverment, making it easier to one day require a national ID.

It is reasonable to ask the people to carry some form of ID and to present it

This is actually a bad thing, to have a required ID card that must be presented when asked.

People wonder what the big issue about id cards is, and the answer is quite simple. Remember watching the movie X-men? Remember the tatoo magneto had? That was a form of ID. (A number given by the germans to jews during wwII)

If we require ID's, and our goverment changes for the worse and starts to discriminate, they can force you to list race/religion/anything right on your "required" ID card. If Id's are not required, or nationally organized, and this situation happened, it would cost huge amounts of reasources to make the system happen rapidly, and it'll be easier to slip through the cracks and be "safe". While if it starts to happen while there is no real threat or trouble, it'll be cheaper since it'll be implemented over many years, with no rush or whatever.

Random note/edit: None of this need to have any evil intent, a national id may very well make life a lil easier/cheaper, cut taxes and etc... but you just never know when everything can suddenly go bad, and if you don't think something like that could possibly happen, go pick up a highschool global history textbook.

 

[Raesvelg]

First off, I think you're taking the "slippery slope" argument too far. As has been pointed out already, the government ALREADY HAS ALL YOUR INFORMATION. Period. Getting ACCESS to it can be tricky at times, but it's there if they want it.

Second, you actually can be arrested for not providing ID under the right circumstances.

 

[Sneakypants]

Dave, by reasonable, I am taking into consideration an ID form, to be presented under certain circumstances, not at every street corner and doorway. I think ID of some kind is necessary when dealing with a population numbering in the hundreds of millions.

I think it is reasonable to be asked to "prove" I am who my airline ticket says I am, or if I should be pulled over by a police officer. When you present your ID at a bar, you "prove" your age, not your identity.

The concern I have is that implants become required. Today, by law, we HAVE to have a driver's license to drive a car. If you are pulled over and asked to present one, but cannot for whatever reason, you will be ticketed for not having a license. You will be required to prove to a court that you do have a valid license. For all intents and purposes, in today's society, we are required to have ID to accomplish many things.

I don't see how the government could mandate that people have an implant. Well, I see how they could, but if they were to go that route, I'd only resist more, as their intentions would clearly not be for the better good of the people.

Implants being a choice, I'm fine with.

Hell, I still pay my bills by sending checks via snail mail. I like it that way because I still have manual control over when the bill gets paid. The money isn't automatically withdrawn, or paid over a "secure network" connection. It can get lost in the mail. I can forget to pay it. But I'd rather the errors be of human nature, rather than some sort of electronic accounting error or identity fraud, etc.

I'm not a control freak, but I like my ducks in a row. The system isn't perfect, but it doesn't piss me off that I have to prove who I am for various things. If the government ever mandated that I would have to plant a chip in my body or suffer some sort of consequence because I am not following their new laws, I would seriously consider moving to a country that had a better set of priorities and no pole up their ass. What I do with my body is my choice, not the government's.


The government would not, because it could not, just flip the switch and force people to have implants. They will shape society over time, contouring it as they please, weathering the population down smooth like river rocks. Then they will be able to flip the switch.

Far fetched? Could be, but "stranger" things have happened and I'd rather do what I can to safeguard the choices I still have than to buckle at the knees every time the government gets excited over something and wants to try it out on their guinea pigs. For anyone to dictate that an individual doesn't have a choice, is simply false. The real goal is not to dictate, but to fool. To make the unreasonable appear reasonable.

 

[Daveman]

First off, I think you're taking the "slippery slope" argument too far. As has been pointed out already, the government ALREADY HAS ALL YOUR INFORMATION. Period. Getting ACCESS to it can be tricky at times, but it's there if they want it.

Second, you actually can be arrested for not providing ID under the right circumstances.

The objective is making it "tricky", because as I mentioned if things go too far one day, and they decide "every person who comes from or has done activity X must be discriminated against", they can't just push one button on some database to automatically create a list of a few million people that the gov't automatically doesn't like.

This isn't for now, this isn't for our current goverment, but things do change, it's always better to be safe than sorry.

And things are slowly getting worse in the name of saving us from terrorism (example). Again, right now it may seem like an overeaction, but it's all in slow steps, and it's not because of ill intent. The current administration might honestly be trying to stop terrorism, but in doing so giving more power to the goverment, and the next war/crisis, will give the next president more power, and etc..

 

[Daveman]

Dave, by reasonable, I am taking into consideration an ID form, to be presented under certain circumstances, not at every street corner and doorway. I think ID of some kind is necessary when dealing with a population numbering in the hundreds of millions.

I misunderstood, sorry =P Anyways, yeah it's reasonable to need ID to receive a service. (aka: driving/plane/beer etc..).

The important thing about a driver's licence is that it's issue by the state's DMV, meaning if you don't actually -need- it to be able to live, of course private companies like driver licence to ID you (banks, credit cards, etc..) however it's not a goverment regulation.

 

[Bajaratt]

The only solution to what you're saying then, is to remove any and all technology from the government, permenantly. Obviously the internet and the telephone were huge mistakes, so we need to undo them NOW to prevent any possible abuses! The rate technology is advancing, most of this stuff IS going to happen. You can try to put in restrictions to prevent any abuse, and I'm all for that, but your stance is basically saying we never should have developed to where we are now because it's easier to track people with cell phones and credit cards.

The government will likely replace all other forms of ID with an RFID microchip, because it's superior to the current method of scattered information. Whether you choose to have it implanted or put inside a card you carry in your wallet is something that SHOULD be left up to a choice for each individual; but the actual technology itself is fine.

Raes is right, the government already has practically all of this information on you already. If they wanted to, they could oppress everyone with blue eyes, because they already have that information stored. All this does it just make it easier for both sides to keep track of their information and access it. Your examples are extremist and oppressions have happened before computers(hello WW2 internment), and before these chips(hello 9/11 internment). The chips just makes it slightly easier for the government to do that, while making things hugely easier the rest of the time for everyone else. There's still no tracking feature so it's not like if they decide to throw all the black people into prison camps that they can find them all with the flip of a switch.

You're comparing a new form of ID to government legislation that oppresses one group and says it's all the same thing. While the RFID would make enforcing such legislation easier, it wouldn't be the cause of such legislation; which is something that you're ignoring.

 

[Stouter]

This isn't a homing beacon like they put on wild animals, it's not a giant sign giving out all your information to everyone. In the most ideal form I could see it being used as proof of age, proof of identity, and medical history. It doesn't have to be something that can be read without your permission.