On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:01:53 -0700, Tim wrote:

sounds to me like the old "chip-under-the-skin" deal.

1984?

Yes, it's pretty easy to imagine something like that now that
technology has evolved the way it has. Imagine that you now have the
ID chip that everyone thought would be a good idea to reduce crime of
all kinds, and also imagine that you are enrolled in the nationally
funded health plan that everyone thought was such a good idea. The
health plan knows *everything* about you of course.

Suppose you are now sitting down to eat in a nice restaurant at an "on
topic" marina, about to order their world class prime ribs. They've
already scanned your chip at the door of course so that they know you
won't be a criminal threat, and so you don't have to worry about
carrying your credit cards. As you place your order, an alert comes
up from the health plan telling you not to order the prime ribs
because they are bad for your high cholesterol ( a function my wife
presently performs). You press the over ride button because you're
willing to take a calculated risk once in a while. Another message
comes back and says: "Fine, if that's what you really want to do, but
be advised that you will no longer be covered for medical benefits".

The possible variations on this scenario go on and on, the technology
is readily available, and the temptation to create the linkages would
be too compelling to ignore.

Do you still think ID chips are a good idea?