SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Broken_Clock who wrote (83161)6/27/2007 11:13:23 AM
From: stan_hughes  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 110194
 
OT -- I first got exposed to this stuff years ago as a purebred dog owner when I found that it was standard procedure to microchip such animals under the scruff of their necks. It was scary then and IMO it's still scary now.

I always figured the implanting of humans wouldn't be too far behind dogs, and then I read that story a few years back about the Mexican AG employees being embedded with chips so that they could more easily clear security. That pilot project was heralded as being superior to handing out ID cards or door passage codes which could easily be stolen, presumably unlike stealing somebody's hand.

Then came some spin about people volunteering to be chipped in case they got kidnapped, which never made sense to me -- as paranoia goes, you'd have to be pretty paranoid about being kidnapped to not be as paranoid about being chipped.

One is easily reminded of the scene in Minority Report where Tom Cruise carries his old eyeballs with him in his pocket so that he can pass through the iris scanner. Not too much of a stretch to imagine one day people will be carrying around their last victim's hand so that they can utilize the chip lying under their skin.

I hope to be dead before all this takes place however.

FWIW -- Here's a blurb from 2004 stating that "only" 18 of those Mexican staffers were chipped, as if that number was somehow okay -- spychips.com



To: Broken_Clock who wrote (83161)6/27/2007 1:56:33 PM
From: NOW  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 110194
 
6666