What is Digg?136 Comments
- thewaz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+45true. they even let us refuse the shot. which i did. seeing as it poses more of a threat to actually getting anthrax poisoning.
dont think i wont refuse a ***** orwellian chip implanted in my arm. - guregu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+36I am not sure this will go over too well with the troops. I remember when I was in, there was a big stink about having to get anthrax shots.
- regedit2D, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31This was actually brought up when I joined a few years ago. They asked if I would accept RFID implantation at a future date. They said it'd be used to get through security checks and to identify my clearance level. I told them a card would be just fine with me.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+29Go ahead. Make our troops feel more objectified.
- fredgsanford, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27Haha, the BEST part about this idea is that from now on, whenever our troops get captured, the enemy is going to lop of their arm "just to be on the safe side" regardless of whether our troop got the implant.
The WORST part is that eventually someone is going to figure out a way to read them from a distance, and they'll be able to track our troops. Put one on the side of the road - now you know how many of our troops are in the hummer on the way to your house. - WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23This is great, this way whenever a soldier is MIA or captured, we can find him with powerful enough antennas.
Unless the enemy knows this, then they'll probably want to remove it. My guess is, they'll skip the anesthesia. - Moosebern, on 10/12/2007, -8/+29This is heinous. It starts with the military then goes to the general public. If this goes through, just wait until everyone is required to have one. Another example of the imminent police state.
- rapiddemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Or unless the enemy has powerful enough antennae. If we can find people with high-gain antennae why can't anyone else? I think this is an awful idea.
- thewaz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21@ UnrealAlex
"Why would you refuse? Cant you just remove it after you've served your tour of duty?"
i cant believe i didnt think of that.. here hand me that hunting knife.... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
- ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27What I meant was...it's a short step to go from the troops getting implanted to the rest of the population.
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17How about we just wear the ****ing dog tags?
- hodyoaten, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17As a former military member I can say that CEO Kevin McLaughlin should step up to the plate and get chipped. Here's his mug shot, in case anyone finds him in a dark alley... a size 11 up his ass will work in lieu of the chip:
http://www.verichipcorp.com/content/company/Management_team - n8r0n, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21@night141
You have not been on Digg long, have you? It gets worse. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13So NOW that crazy guy on the street handing out pamphlets and holding up a sign complaining about a chip implanted under his skin in 1975 is going to be taken seriously?
That's the real scary part. Ask him about the lizards! - malkir, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18You cannot find people with these things. They have to be in close proximity. The only possible use for these in this situation is to identify casualties and moving people through bureaucracy 'faster'.
- n8r0n, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Keep in mind people this is not the governments idea. This is a private company trying to get the government to do it so they can get in on the government contracting cash cow.
- ZeroMP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10apocalizer says: "Has anyone thought of this? If you have a weapon that can instantly read RFIDs in the vicinity of where you're aiming and stops firing when pointed at friendly troops, wouldn't that reduce instances of friendly fire?"
First, if I were a soldier in combat I would prefer to have a gun that fires when I pull the trigger, not one where I pull the trigger, then some software built into the gun runs through an algorithm checking for RFID tags and then decides whether or not it would like to release that round. Also, I suppose if we are talking about $0.25 - $4.00 per soldier to implant the chip - we're only talking about a few hundred to a few thousand dollars per weapon to integrate this special computer into each weapon to reduce instances of friendly fire? Are you ***** insane or just joking with me?
Second, suppose you have an American POW - just rip his chip out, replicate it, and have each one of your troops put one in his shirt pocket, right over his heart. Now he can charge you with his trusty pull-n-fire AK while you stand there going: Click.. click click click!!! - ZeroMP, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16This sounds like a great idea! Once they are able to force said chips into the soldiers, it will only be that much easier for them to force them onto civilians.
"Hey look how well this is working to protect our soldiers from the Eurasions er.. Terrorists!"
It's only for your own protection after all. You do not know what is good for you, let Uncle Sam take care of that and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Bah. - rapiddemon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Um, they are already in dogs and small animals, for identification purposes.
- RexKwando, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Our troops our typically our guinea pigs. In my brief stint in the military, I recall many occurences that would not be acceptable by civilians. We were told to accept it and get over it. Some things I found out, by later research, was libido decreasing chemicals introduced into the food. The soldiers are given notification of this in plain writting when they sign up, if they so choose to read the "fine print."
- Electrawn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Finding a proper comment to respond to seems impossible...new thread.
1.) The military has Military GPS. The Enemy has Commercial GPS. Granted, the military has the option to shut off Commercial GPS in war time, but with so many home and business (some mission critical) applications relying on it in the US and Europe, the likelyhood is impossible.
So, GPS-enabled RFID tags are BAD. Thinking about it, I'm not quite sure how GPS could be used in a body without a battery and active microchip. Want to plug your soldier in at night?
2.) RFID improvements. There are two types of RFID, Active and Passive. Active requires a battery. The reader pulses a read code on a frequency, and the RFID tag broadcasts info. This allows longer range but higher implementation cost. Since this is proposed to be under the skin, an active implementation seems improbable.
This leaves passive. The reader pulses constantly at a certain frequency, and the RFID tags vibrate in response and broadcast their information. Current technology to read the actual info off a vibrating tag requires the reader to be in close proximity.
Notice I said READ. The enemy doesn't have to read the signal. All they have to do is broadcast a strong pulse signal on the RFID frequency and measure responses like radar blips. Combined with a directional antenna, they could light up our troop locations with an active radar like scan on the frequency!
As a safety measure, we could include a blowout mechanism for a pulse above a certain megawatt. Since these would be implanted and the cost to replace them high, I doubt such measures would be pratical.
Summary...as this needs a simple slogan cause: RFID TAGS IN TROOPS ALLOW ENEMY TO PINPOINT TROOP LOCATIONS.
For reference, passive RFID is not new and the technique behind it was used by the USSR ingeniously against the US Ambassador in Moscow.
http://www.spybusters.com/Great_Seal_Bug.html
Solution: An RFID/microchip dog tag is a better idea. Medical data, location, etc is useful say if a barracks gets bombed. The chip needs an off switch and or self destruct mechanism for battle. Our military can be disciplined enough to turn on the chip while in a military facility and turn it off when doing active combat operations.
NO EMBEDDED RFID CHIPS! - birdwatcher3000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"I am not a number. Am a free man!"
...and up the Irons. - drunkenoaf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10but it's not increased safety!
If they're not going to use it to take an inventory of dead torsos, it seems to me to be likely that they;ll use it much like IFF on aircraft radar-- on access to weapons/ vehicles.
Now, this technology is going to be hacked and cracked apart, surely. Or failing that, capture a US soldier. The enemy removes the RFID tag. Implants it into himself. Then does some nasty things with it. Bah! - Starfire42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Didn't the blackhats read an RFID-chip from a mile away? That would be quite an advantage for the enemies now wouldn't it...
- triplehelix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@apocalizer (and those that say there is nothing to be concerned about)
a good analogy why i have concerns about this is the social security number. it was insured it wouldn't be used for anything but social security benefits, and that no other agency's or private entities would be allowed use of it.
now everyone here in the states has one, and it is your defacto "identification number"
there are other examples of how this could be interpreted as the thin edge of the wedge. first soldiers, then everyone in the military, then all government workers, ect...
the potential abuses of this technology far outweigh the potential benefits. - regedit2D, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7yeah, cause the terrorist will jam or disable it instead of the simple choice of slicing the prisoner apart.
- apocalizer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12They're supposed to go inside the right arm. Just thought you guys might want a intelligible reply to this.
- ZeroMP, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8It's easy for people who are NOT soldiers to find this acceptable and to point out instances where it might be useful. You would probably be less willing to accept this if it was to be stuck in your arm. Also, I'm not denying that these chips can have their benefits - the problem is that these benefits do not outweigh the enourmous potential for misuse.
Also, just because our current technology will read these chips only from a distance of x feet does not mean that five years from now we will not be able to read data from said chips from much greater distances. To think that we have already maximized the range of this technology is to make a completely absurd assumption that several of the commenters here seem to have made. Keep digging me down for pointing out that there is an enourmous potential for abuse here kthx. - Langford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Dog tags also have the advantage of not requiring special equipment to read and/or collect.
- lasermike026, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I guess they could tatoo a number on my arm too.
- lazerdave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6And what happens when the enemy makes booby traps designed to only go off in the presence of these chips? Their countrymen can pass by unscathed for days or weeks and when they detect a certain number of these chips in their vicinity -- BOOM.
Chew on that for a while. - lasermike026, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14Support Our President
AND The Terrorists Win!!!!!!! - Galphanore, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Yes, but it is also the kind of thing Bush Co. will approve of if they think they can get away with it.
- n8r0n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Actually the Common Access Card (CAC) has a smart chip, not an RFID.
- Interex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This is a terrible idea. Yeah sure it gives some hope in finding MIA soldiers, but at the same time the enemy will be looking to find a way to track the implants as well, then they would have early warning of where the troops are and where they are heading... its definietly not a good idea to give an enemy the opportunity to track your soldiers positions.
- copilot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Might as well ask the troops to wear cowbells that tell people where they are and a loudspeaker that broadcasts their personal information to anyone with the proper equipment. I'll call it the cowbelloudspeakerifichip. That's trademarked BTW.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8this is stupid. these chips wont make it easier to identify troops because you have to have a reader for it and the enemy will surely know it's implanted in their right arm so choping it off is the least of their worries. that isn't the reason why they want it in the troops
- Clbck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Great idea, except...What if you lost your arm in battle? And if they were GPS-traceable, the enemy would just cut of the arms of all the people they capture.
- serverslayer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7If the terrorist/kidnappers learn about this, and they will, wouldnt they be more apt to just cut off *insert body part here* of everyone they capture.
- mozillamonks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Hmm, I suddenly recall something I read about before. It was about a group not very well know I think. They're called the Borg.
Now, here are my thoughts :)
Why would anyone, given they are in their right mind, want to have someone put a square piece of glass containing an integrated circuit under their skin? Nothing can go wrong you say, here are a few examples:
RFID scanners at a store tag you as having stolen merchandise every time you enter/exit
In a hostage situation it becomes impossible to conceal your identity
We already know these chips can be *easily* cloned and mass cleared, in fact with a altered cellphone that can clear chips for a mile radius.
Infection occurs around the chips injection site.
The glass break, leaking toxic chemicals into your bloodstream
Also, note that the *company that makes these things* is lobbying. Not the government, not the soldiers, not the army. They realize these things are mainly useless, and now they need a way to stay afloat, what better way then to tug at America's heart strings and pretend these will bring soldiers back. Yeah, right. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Come on man, it's not that bad, it only hurts for a minute
Signed,
sharks, dolphins, whales, injured animals released back into the wild and every other tagged animal - Jpilot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5FYI- They're already in our (military) ID cards. The CAC card has had an RFID in it for about a year now. Much rather have it in my wallet than in my arm.
- theoallardyce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Advantages:
- Harder to loose (do we have a national dog-tag loosing crisis?)
- You can scan the debris of an explosion or battle
- VeriChip will be rich
Disadvantages
- VeriChip will be rich, at the expense of the tax payer. The chips cost $4 each and VeriCunt will rip the US Army off to the tune of $100 per ***** YEAR!
- Dog tags have been tried, tested, and proven in battle for 100 years, why ***** with something that works PERFECTLY
- The first point of dog tags is that you can collect one of them from dead bodies if the bodies cant be moved straight away, unless GI Joe carries around a mother ***** RFID scanner on all his patrols how THE ABSOLUTE ***** are you going to recover each soldiers ID?
- The second point of dog tags is that emergency medical information can be written on them for field medics, again, 9 times out of 10 you're not going to have a ***** RFID reader around and as a result PEOPLE WILL DIE.
- If the Titanic was unsinkable then no-one would have drowned. If an enemy ever got hold of the database behind this system they would have the rank of every US soldier on hand and you can ***** bet your ass every single ***** sniper will be carrying a PDA with this database and a blue-sniper antenna. Even without the database, there are hardly many RFID tags around, especially in 3rd world countries, US soldiers, radio-wise, will stick out like sore thumbs
Conclusion:
VeriChip wants to MURDER US Soldiers and ensure their bodies are never recovered, they want to STEAL from the tax payer so that the US army cant afford ammo or armour.
VERI CHIP = MURDERERS - Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"No, Hojo. You never gave me a number. You said I was a failed experiment."
- triplehelix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6yeah, i mean history has no examples of private corporations and government being in collusion.
- apocalizer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9@ahhell:
Name one civilization that has ever existed that required you to carry identification that could keep track of every move that you make? I'm not counting the normal ID that everyone usually carries. - ZeroMP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Even if this is a corporate endeavor (which it is) it still leads to the same effects. Dehumanization and surveillance of the general populace. First it was putting chips in the shoulders of convicted murderers/child molesters and letting them out of prison - or putting chips in pets so they don't get lost..
Now they want to stick chips in soldiers and children so they can be found if misplaced. The more we put tracking chips into humans, the more acceptable and "normal" it seems, right up to the point where it is mandated for civilians to get chipped so we can all be kept under control more easily. - nazsco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4the enemy will love it!
car bombs with a rfid reader will lower civilian deaths on the other hand... - davejl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4or just use the GPS-tracability to track our troops themselves... that way they won't need Geraldo to show maps of our troop locations!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 130 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is