On Tuesday, September 30, 2003, at 01:42 am, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 01:28:19AM +0100, William T Goodall wrote:
On Monday, September 29, 2003, at 11:44 pm, Erik Reuter wrote:
Good point, very true. Of course, one could also wear false
fingerprints. The problem of quickly and accurately identifying people
is a difficult one, and one that likely won't be solved soon.
They could use those chips they put in pets... with a bit of crypto-key
stuff and whatever since the pet ones aren't designed to be secure...
How do you get people to consent to have chip implants? And if they don't consent, how do you keep them from removing them?
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 :)
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.
-- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Those who study history are doomed to repeat it.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
