How do you feel about having a RFID chip implanted inside you ?
The bodies being recovered in the Gulf Coast are being tagged with
RFID.
Imagine if you went to the store with no cash, check or credit card and got
your crap and walked out the door. The RFID chip would be your account.
Stolen items could be tracked easily.
Discuss the pros and cons of Human RFID tagging.
BAD: I'd feel like a cow.
GOOD: I could find out who stole my stuff and reclaim it.
BAD: Couldn't get that manly feeling I get when I slap five bucks on the counter and say, "Yeah, I'm buying that," anymore.
Um... how about the complete loss of privacy, combined with the rather obvious ability for governemtn abuse. SIGN ME RIGHT UP.
Seriously, anyone who thinks this is a good idea is.... well, I dont want to say retarded, but retarded.
Megan's Law actually wants to do that too sexual criminals even after they are released, it is a killer for civil rights but whatever you people want to decide.
Megans law is also the most retardedpeice of legislation on the books, right up there with th california "three strikes law" that has people serving life sentences for stealing a pizza.:(
Bad Idea. Just more things to get hacked. Also it makes the goverment more controllable of us
Hate the idea. It supports communism ( >:-0 ), and while it does offer easier means of delivering justice, it just is the first step to another civil war. Think about what events are likely to happen... I'd personally hate to be branded.
Wow, I didnt even think about the ability to hax the chips.
It reminds me of Big Brother in 1984.
How the Hell would anyone feel secure ever again, when anyone could figure out who you are with a handheld scanner? ID theft would be as easy as being sneaky. I'll never have one of these things put in my, and if I do, then I'll cut it off (I've always heard that fingertips is where they want to put them).
Pros: Crimes would be down. Think about it. If ever house had a scanner on it, and someone broke into your house and killed you. The police would be able to check the scanner and see who had broken in. Child Molesters and kidnappers could easily be tracked down and so could kids. This would save more childrens lives.
Cons: I don't know if I would feel free with my every move being watched and scanned.
Why not just kill everyone? That'll solve the crime problem real quick.
In the state of Florida, if you shoplift apack of gum, and you happened to have a gun in your back pocket, even if that fact was only found out after you were arrested (i.e. nobody made reference to it, and it was never drawn), you just fell under the 10/25/Life policy, and earned yourself a 10 year minimum sentence. There are lots of little stupid things that count as felonies. The example in question was a guy who had stolen two cars in the past (both felonies), and then robbed as pizza delivery guy of his pizza with a baseball bat. Is it a crime? Yes. Does it deserve punishment? Yes. Does he deserve to spend life in prison for armed robbery? Hardly.
The criminal justice system is probably the best example of why mob rule and direct democracy can't work. Pandering to populist emotion and rage in a justice system is bloody dangerous. Just look at the way people always try to outdo each other in suggesting creatively brutal and torturous punishments for rape and such... this bloodthirsty vengefulness should never be enshrined into a rational justice system.
Might as well just let mobs stone people.
[QUOTE=Lord of Spam]They must have changed the law since I studied it, tehn, beucase any 3 felonies were enough to put you away, and it was mandatory afte rthe third.
The exact application of the three-strikes laws varies considerably from state to state. Some states require all three felony convictions to be for violent crimes in order for the mandatory sentence to be pronounced, while others
The thought of something like this inside me, tracing me everywhere i go bugs me. I couldnt stand it, and I do somehow think that I would rip it out of me, and then start or join a resistance. And this of course would cuase more problems than it would solve, and the Goverment are horrible, yet vary vary good at starting stupid things like this. One way or another I have a bad feeling about our future.
Couldn't they just end up controlling people's thoughts or something worse be used to find out what your thinking or something.
[quote=King Douchebag]That is totally, totally false.
The presence of a firearm during a misdemeanor doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of 10/20/Life.
The law is very clear that the crime has to be gun related, with the firearm being an operative element in the comission of the crime.
OH WOW THANKS IF IT WERENT FOR YOU I WOULD HAVE LET ALL THOSE COURT REPORTS AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES FOOL ME. THANK YOU FOR SHOWING ME THE LIGHT, YOU FUCKING CUNT.
It would bother me for the government to have that much control over me, and know exactally who I am, what medications im on, my criminal record (or lack thereof), job, income, family status, house size, and fetishes by scanning a little handheld over me.
OMGLOLROFLBBQ NO THX K?!?!?
Anyone interested might want to look at this quarters' 2600, in an article entitled "United Kingdom: The State of Surveillance."
Basically, what they're doing over there is installing ANPR (Automatic Plate Number Recognition) systems so they can track what cars are going where, if there are duplicate plate numbers ("cloned cars"), etc. Plates can be read at speeds near 100mph, and the data stored supposedly is mined for roughtly two years. They're seemingly using this to look for criminals and stolen cars, but it seems like a very good way to be "Big Brother" in that if you use a car, they can have a rough idea of your proximity at any time, and go back several years into the past to find out where you were. They're also thinking aboutusing E-plates (Standard EU plates with RFID chips in them) to monitor this more effectively, but to achieve the same result. Also, AFR (automatic facial recognition) systems are being used in some parts of the UK, and these supposedly do the same sort of thing as the APNR systems, just with your face.
The CCTV systems in Britain always seemed excessive, but this? I feel bad for anyone living under that kind of overbearing surveillance and data-logging. Biometrics have always ****ed me off, and that fact that these systems are now entering our society is equally irritating. Where I live, thankfully, there are very few, if any, general surveillance cameras, and equally few traffic-monitoring cameras (although they're simply used against speeders, not the general driver).
[quote=Misoxeny]Anyone interested might want to look at this quarters' 2600, in an article entitled "United Kingdom: The State of Surveillance."
Basically, what they're doing over there is installing ANPR (Automatic Plate Number Recognition) systems so they can track what cars are going where, if there are duplicate plate numbers ("cloned cars"), etc. Plates can be read at speeds near 100mph, and the data stored supposedly is mined for roughtly two years. They're seemingly using this to look for criminals and stolen cars, but it seems like a very good way to be "Big Brother" in that if you use a car, they can have a rough idea of your proximity at any time, and go back several years into the past to find out where you were. They're also thinking aboutusing E-plates (Standard EU plates with RFID chips in them) to monitor this more effectively, but to achieve the same result. Also, AFR (automatic facial recognition) systems are being used in some parts of the UK, and these supposedly do the same sort of thing as the APNR systems, just with your face.
The CCTV systems in Britain always seemed excessive, but this? I feel bad for anyone living under that kind of overbearing surveillance and data-logging. Biometrics have always ****ed me off, and that fact that these systems are now entering our society is equally irritating. Where I live, thankfully, there are very few, if any, general surveillance cameras, and equally few traffic-monitoring cameras (although they're simply used against speeders, not the general driver).
Aye, I agree there. I always took comfort in the fact that, if I'm ever mugged, the wanker will be caught on CCTV without fail. But the possibility of such systems being turned against me is always frightening. But honestly, I can't think of a reason to track 60 million people's every move, and the UK doesn't have the resources to do so anyway. With or without them you'll feel insecure anyway from different parties. Rather the enemy I knew (the government) than the enemy I didn't (some random mugger), in my opinion.
i like the idea it would help you find things if you lost them
but i would also have to stop playing with fire
and i dnt wanna
I think RFID, surveillance, and data-mining all cause more problems than they solve, personally. And the primary reason most of these things are done on a minimal level here in the States is because a majority of people think the same way.
I'd rather run my risks with a mugger than have every single act I do in public be monitored and possibly stored under a unique profile based on my biometric data, have the route I follow traced, and to be x-rayed by anyone with an RFID scanner. It's called mace and a zippo, guys. ;)