On 2008-02-18 23:03:57 -0500, "Leanne" said:

"Jere Lull" wrote in message
news:2008021822353075249-jerelull@maccom...
On 2008-02-18 20:29:49 -0500, "Capt. JG" said:

Considering people are already using chips in their pets for ID I think
it only prudent to put one in your kid in case a terrorrist bags your
child. that way the DHS could call an Amber ALert and find your child.

Sad to say, this will likely be the "camel's nose", as there are such
services that will track your kid real-time now, and some parents are
using them. I believe I saw a chip in the UK; in the US, I believe it's
via cell-phone, either by GPS or a service similar to the iPhone/iPod
mapping function.

There was a thing on the news tonight where they are putting chips in
Alzheimer's patients, down in Florida. I don't think they are trackers,
but just identifcation and medical history.

'Tis funny, but that sort of application sorta appeals to me:
information I would like first-responders to have instantly at their
fingertips, when accurate information can make a difference. I sorta
like the LoJack units that'll pinpoint a stolen vehicle, or the idea
that a missing kid could be found quickly. If I ever get a cell-phone,
of course I'll have an ICE (in case of emergency) entry. But simply
establishing a Wifi connection can now "locate" me.

When do we smack the camel's nose? Where does the admitted possible
life-saving features balance the possible intrusions?

Some say at the first possible intrusion, some consider one saved life
worth it, some depend on sheer volume of data to hide amongst.

I certainly don't know the answer, even for me. Luckily, TWIC won't
possibly matter to me for a bit & our passports are good for a few more
years.

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/