On Oct 31, 9:17 am, Chuck Gould wrote:
USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
explosives and used to
blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
in several areas).

These programs tend to grow like Topsy. Once the "ID Card" gets the
camel nose under the tent, some bureaucrat on a 4-hour lunchbreak in
DC will get the bright idea..."Hey, if we require every boat to carry
a GPS transponder we'll need a new department with 50,000 employees
and 200 locations to track the movement of every boat on the water. I
can be appointed supervisor and get promoted from a GS(whatever) to a
grade where I'll make another $100k a year! We can require every
boater to buy a transponder, and put in a tax of $100 per boat per
year to support the monitoring!"

ID card?, maybe mandatory transponders?, perhaps eventually mandatory
GPS "chips" carried on the person 24/7 so everybody can be monitored
at all times wherever they go? If the 9-11 terrorists had a goal to
prfoundly change our way of life in America, it looks like they
succeeded. George Orwell was right, he just never anticipated the
government would be spying on us all by satellite.

At least it will be easy to know how the bad guys are. They will be
the folks
who don't carry the ID, don't use the transponder, and don't carry
their mandatory GPS personal tracking chip 24-7. Of course we won't
know *where* they are until it's too late.......so what's the real
difference between all of the potential government snooping and just
letting people live their lives with a modicum of privacy?

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

1984?

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?

Wayne.B wrote:
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?

I think they are good for other people, after all if you have nothing to
hide, why worry about it. I have nothing to fear if they put them in
other people.

I don't want them in me because they have been linked to cancer in
animals, but it doesn't bother me for them to be installed in other
people, as long as it isn't my tax dollars or my insurance dollars
paying for your cancer.

Wait, on 2nd thought, they probably are going to charge me for the
increase in medical costs. I changed my mind and don't think they are a
good idea.

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:33:55 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

I think they are good for other people, after all if you have nothing to
hide, why worry about it. I have nothing to fear if they put them in
other people.

I'm sure that is intended humoursly but think about the implications.
Once the vast majority of the population has chips "because they had
nothing to hide", anyone without a chip would become immediately
suspect, sort of like someone without a drivers license is today.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:33:55 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

I think they are good for other people, after all if you have nothing to
hide, why worry about it. I have nothing to fear if they put them in
other people.

I'm sure that is intended humoursly but think about the implications.
Once the vast majority of the population has chips "because they had
nothing to hide", anyone without a chip would become immediately
suspect, sort of like someone without a drivers license is today.

I didn't think it was to be intended humorously, I thought it was
blatant tongue in check sarcasm. My bad.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:33:55 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

I think they are good for other people, after all if you have nothing to
hide, why worry about it. I have nothing to fear if they put them in
other people.

I'm sure that is intended humoursly but think about the implications.
Once the vast majority of the population has chips "because they had
nothing to hide", anyone without a chip would become immediately
suspect, sort of like someone without a drivers license is today.

Welcome to Planet Mongo.

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:29:23 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:


Do you still think ID chips are a good idea?

Chips are old technology. Nano radios are the next thing. Everything a ID chip has to offer,
and you get to listen in. Hell, I think a national ID card is a dangerous idea, let alone a chip,
but I think this nano technology is pretty incredible.

http://www.physorg.com/news6515.html

On Nov 5, 8:29?am, Wayne.B wrote:
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?

That's not as far out as you think. Now that our purchases are
routinely tracked in grocery stores, it's only a matter of time before
some insurance company declares "Sorry, Mr. Policyholder. We're not
going to pay for your angioplasty because we have evidence you have
been buying a case of Twinkies every month for the last five years.
Your health problems are the result of your own bad decisions, so you
pay."

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:29?am, Wayne.B wrote:
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?

That's not as far out as you think. Now that our purchases are
routinely tracked in grocery stores, it's only a matter of time before
some insurance company declares "Sorry, Mr. Policyholder. We're not
going to pay for your angioplasty because we have evidence you have
been buying a case of Twinkies every month for the last five years.
Your health problems are the result of your own bad decisions, so you
pay."


If they wanted to restrict their claims, it would be much easier to just
to say "anyone who exceeds their ideal weight or cholesterol levels by
more than X% will not longer be covered by their health insurance, since
your health problems are the result of your own bad decisions, you now pay.

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:29:23 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

Do you still think ID chips are a good idea?

Ummm - yes?

Tell you what - it saves a lot of time registering at the hospital.

Scanner hits you at the door, wham, bam, thank you 'mam, do your thing
and your out.

Had a special blood test today which normally takes 30 minutes from
the time I get there to the time I'm back out the door. Total elapsed
time - 8 minutes and the only person I saw was the vampire.

This afternoon, had to see the blood doc - in the door, see the doc,
out the door in 30 minutes - some people where still registering.

Can't beat it.