On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 12:09:16PM +0100, William T Goodall wrote: > You make being chipped a necessary form of identification for > obtaining a bank account, getting a job, hiring or buying a car, > purchasing rail, bus or air tickets, obtaining medical treatment, > claiming pensions or other benefits... and then let people choose > quite freely whether they want to be chipped or live in a shack in the > woods and eat bark :)
Who would vote for those laws? I think Andrew has the more likely scenario, some employers could require it as a condition of employment. But in that case, it would be easy to mask or shield the chip whenever you weren't at work so only your employer could scan it (and I guess people would even come up with workarounds in the workplace, so I bet it wouldn't work so well, besides that a lot of highly desirable employees would refuse to work at such a place) > As for removal - it would be much easier to insert a rice-grain sized > chip deep into the abdomen (say) than it would be to surgically remove > it. Could you elaborate? Since these things are (obviously) designed to be scanned, it would be easy to pinpoint the location with a hand-held scanner. So if you know exactly where it is, it seems it would be as easy to remove as to implant. And I can't imagine people consenting to serious surgery for implant -- it would have to be just sub-cutaneous in order to be widely adopted. Anything that is swallowed is unlikely to be permanent enough. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
