Getting yourself Micro chipped.

philc

LE
Some thing thats been slowly coming to the forefront of life is getting a micro chip implanted in yourself, this contains data that can be accessed via a reader. In the past various tech companies have done it to allow staff to access areas with say door swipes. Seems its going a little further in Sweden with gym access and IDs being accessible.

Me, I dont even have a contactless bank card as some smart bugger is reading these as I type this some where in the world. Every year big pronouncements they are unhackable and every year the technology is hacked. Rather like big companies data being stolen, seems the banks would rather suffer some loss pushing technology.

So I fail to see any difference, with the right reader and proximity, someone is going to read whats on your implant. If its your gym membership, so what, but your ID, social security number, do you want that out in the big wide world.

Even in the future this will be true, no digital system will be fool proof and therefore susceptible to access.

 
Some thing thats been slowly coming to the forefront of life is getting a micro chip implanted in yourself, this contains data that can be accessed via a reader. In the past various tech companies have done it to allow staff to access areas with say door swipes. Seems its going a little further in Sweden with gym access and IDs being accessible.

Me, I dont even have a contactless bank card as some smart bugger is reading these as I type this some where in the world. Every year big pronouncements they are unhackable and every year the technology is hacked. Rather like big companies data being stolen, seems the banks would rather suffer some loss pushing technology.

So I fail to see any difference, with the right reader and proximity, someone is going to read whats on your implant. If its your gym membership, so what, but your ID, social security number, do you want that out in the big wide world.

Even in the future this will be true, no digital system will be fool proof and therefore susceptible to access.

It would need extensive testing first.

Volunteers should apply by floating across from France on leaky lilos, or bungeeing themselves to the underside of trucks and even burrowing (and shitting, obvs) into shipments of perishable goods into the country.

Job's a good'un.
 
Some thing thats been slowly coming to the forefront of life is getting a micro chip implanted in yourself, this contains data that can be accessed via a reader. In the past various tech companies have done it to allow staff to access areas with say door swipes. Seems its going a little further in Sweden with gym access and IDs being accessible.

Me, I dont even have a contactless bank card as some smart bugger is reading these as I type this some where in the world. Every year big pronouncements they are unhackable and every year the technology is hacked. Rather like big companies data being stolen, seems the banks would rather suffer some loss pushing technology.

So I fail to see any difference, with the right reader and proximity, someone is going to read whats on your implant. If its your gym membership, so what, but your ID, social security number, do you want that out in the big wide world.

Even in the future this will be true, no digital system will be fool proof and therefore susceptible to access.

Pets are routinely microchipped, and they provide all sorts of benefits, such as being able to find out who the animal belongs too. Chipping a person, you can instantly find out who the collapsed person is, what may have caused the collapse and if there are any factors that should be of concern such as allergic reactions. Equally in a human use it adds to security and the ability to identify someone.

These sorts of chips need contact with the reader, so I doubt the tracking would happen remotely. If it could, then the sheer amount of data would make life difficult for passive general surveillance. Equally, if the Authorities are interested in your activities at current, then they probably are already tracking you, with Mk.1 eyeball if all else fails. When you logically think about it, there's nothing that can't be done already, such as ANPR camera's tracking your car, usage of card's such as ID cards (which the chip replaces) and the like.
I suppose the only difference is if you want to leave your cards at home and go "off-grid" you can not. Of course I can't think of a scenario where this option is needed at current, but I suppose the option is always a good thing?

In summary: There appears to be no logical reason not to do it. I mean if you replace the word "chip" with the word "Finger print", it appears to be no different. I suspect the only reason Finger print readers have not become more common is functionality. It often takes a few attempts to unlock my phone for example, if its been in my back pocket and the fingerprint reader is damp. An electronic chip would solve this instantly.
The only objection is the emotive one, that it seems somewhat sinister. This is likely from two sources, science fiction, and attempts to monitor society such as NAZI Germany tatoo'ing numbers onto people.
 

Daxx

MIA
Book Reviewer
Not for me. For the same reasons I don't have any form of smart payment on my phone, or have my home stuff wired into the net etc
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Pets are routinely microchipped, and they provide all sorts of benefits, such as being able to find out who the animal belongs too. Chipping a person, you can instantly find out who the collapsed person is, what may have caused the collapse and if there are any factors that should be of concern such as allergic reactions. Equally in a human use it adds to security and the ability to identify someone.

These sorts of chips need contact with the reader, so I doubt the tracking would happen remotely. If it could, then the sheer amount of data would make life difficult for passive general surveillance. Equally, if the Authorities are interested in your activities at current, then they probably are already tracking you, with Mk.1 eyeball if all else fails. When you logically think about it, there's nothing that can't be done already, such as ANPR camera's tracking your car, usage of card's such as ID cards (which the chip replaces) and the like.
I suppose the only difference is if you want to leave your cards at home and go "off-grid" you can not. Of course I can't think of a scenario where this option is needed at current, but I suppose the option is always a good thing?

In summary: There appears to be no logical reason not to do it. I mean if you replace the word "chip" with the word "Finger print", it appears to be no different. I suspect the only reason Finger print readers have not become more common is functionality. It often takes a few attempts to unlock my phone for example, if its been in my back pocket and the fingerprint reader is damp. An electronic chip would solve this instantly.
The only objection is the emotive one, that it seems somewhat sinister. This is likely from two sources, science fiction, and attempts to monitor society such as NAZI Germany tatoo'ing numbers onto people.
My wallet has protected compartments for contactless cards, which suggests that random data harvesting is easier than you suppose. Even if it wasn't, if human chipping became a widespread phenomenon, the systems required to harvest and manage the data would be developed by someone somewhere and would, inevitably, be abused.

Chipping animals who can't talk makes sense but the only difference between chipping someone, so all their details can be accessed, and making them wear a yellow star is the technology.
 
As a result of reading some of the more wild and random posts on Arrse, I feel no need to protect myself to any great degree as I have a roll of tin foil in the kitchen and the instructions of how to make a hat, when the need arises.
 
My wallet has protected compartments for contactless cards, which suggests that random data harvesting is easier than you suppose. Even if it wasn't, if human chipping became a widespread phenomenon, the systems required to harvest and manage the data would be developed by someone somewhere and would, inevitably, be abused.

Chipping animals who can't talk makes sense but the only difference between chipping someone, so all their details can be accessed, and making them wear a yellow star is the technology.
The protection is there fore contactless payments. In crowded environments such as the tube some people have been using portable contactless machines, which they wave generally in the direction of peoples waistlines. They set the contactless payment below the maximum number. This then charges you a fee.

Such defences as moving your wallet to a chest pocket works wonders for this. Its also harder for pickpockets, which was the previous generation of this problem. There's also the argument. So a criminal waves a scanner in your direction. Well done, he's got a bunch of hashed numbers.
 

philc

LE
Pets are routinely microchipped, and they provide all sorts of benefits, such as being able to find out who the animal belongs too. Chipping a person, you can instantly find out who the collapsed person is, what may have caused the collapse and if there are any factors that should be of concern such as allergic reactions. Equally in a human use it adds to security and the ability to identify someone.

These sorts of chips need contact with the reader, so I doubt the tracking would happen remotely. If it could, then the sheer amount of data would make life difficult for passive general surveillance. Equally, if the Authorities are interested in your activities at current, then they probably are already tracking you, with Mk.1 eyeball if all else fails. When you logically think about it, there's nothing that can't be done already, such as ANPR camera's tracking your car, usage of card's such as ID cards (which the chip replaces) and the like.
I suppose the only difference is if you want to leave your cards at home and go "off-grid" you can not. Of course I can't think of a scenario where this option is needed at current, but I suppose the option is always a good thing?

In summary: There appears to be no logical reason not to do it. I mean if you replace the word "chip" with the word "Finger print", it appears to be no different. I suspect the only reason Finger print readers have not become more common is functionality. It often takes a few attempts to unlock my phone for example, if its been in my back pocket and the fingerprint reader is damp. An electronic chip would solve this instantly.
The only objection is the emotive one, that it seems somewhat sinister. This is likely from two sources, science fiction, and attempts to monitor society such as NAZI Germany tatoo'ing numbers onto people.
Your saying that as a form of ID and tracing, its all irreverent as systems are in place that all ready do that so why not take it that step further. The problem is, when your data is stolen and duplicated and say places you at the scene of a crime, what then. The data says your were there.

Its the theft and miss use of the data that concern's me. Even in your medical analogy, what if someone wish someone harm and replaces the data with another set of data, not allergic to a drug when they are.

Its the reading, access and missuse of data thats the issue.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
The protection is there fore contactless payments. In crowded environments such as the tube some people have been using portable contactless machines, which they wave generally in the direction of peoples waistlines. They set the contactless payment below the maximum number. This then charges you a fee.

Such defences as moving your wallet to a chest pocket works wonders for this. Its also harder for pickpockets, which was the previous generation of this problem. There's also the argument. So a criminal waves a scanner in your direction. Well done, he's got a bunch of hashed numbers.
That's criminals abusing contactless payment, what about state actors abusing microchips?
 
Its the theft and miss use of the data that concern's me. Even in your medical analogy, what if someone wish someone harm and replaces the data with another set of data, not allergic to a drug when they are.

Its the reading, access and missuse of data thats the issue.
Like now? The NHS has the Summary Care Record, which contains all information as I suggested earlier. It is online and authorised users can access it. Unless you opt out, then you likely have one.

How many cases of assassinations as you describe have there been, since it was set up, what, a decade ago? The only difference between what I suggested and now is instead of opening your wallet to get your name, and punching it into a web browser is they run a scanner over the chipped location.

That's criminals abusing contactless payment, what about state actors abusing microchips?
How?
Please give me one example of how a state could abuse a microchip, which they can not do now?
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Like now? The NHS has the Summary Care Record, which contains all information as I suggested earlier. It is online and authorised users can access it. Unless you opt out, then you likely have one.

How many cases of assassinations as you describe have there been, since it was set up, what, a decade ago? The only difference between what I suggested and now is instead of opening your wallet to get your name, and punching it into a web browser is they run a scanner over the chipped location.



How?
Please give me one example of how a state could abuse a microchip, which they can not do now?
If I go abroad, I can be identified by my passport and any details I've knowingly supplied, as per the Esta programme. Yes they can use that info to dig further, but they have to dig as opposed to being gifted everything on a plate simply by scanning me at Arrivals.

Data is big business and data gets abused.
 

Daxx

MIA
Book Reviewer
/me wonders if a Brimstone can lock onto a human micrchip????? :)
 

philc

LE
Like now? The NHS has the Summary Care Record, which contains all information as I suggested earlier. It is online and authorised users can access it. Unless you opt out, then you likely have one.

How many cases of assassinations as you describe have there been, since it was set up, what, a decade ago? The only difference between what I suggested and now is instead of opening your wallet to get your name, and punching it into a web browser is they run a scanner over the chipped location.



How?
Please give me one example of how a state could abuse a microchip, which they can not do now?
What I am putting forward is all theoretical, examples of how data can be abused, yes data can be accessed and abused now, why make it easier by wearing that data.
 
If I go abroad, I can be identified by my passport and any details I've knowingly supplied, as per the Esta programme. Yes they can use that info to dig further, but they have to dig as opposed to being gifted everything on a plate simply by scanning me at Arrivals.

Data is big business and data gets abused.
So you agree with me then. The only argument agaisnt it is an emotive one.

What I am putting forward is all theoretical, examples of how data can be abused, yes data can be accessed and abused now, why make it easier by wearing that data.
But you already do wear that data. Yes it can be accessed and abused, like it does now. Ever worry about comms between your smart phone and smart watch? No? You're litterally transmitting data. Against someone touching your chip?


So far those arguing agaisnt it are giving nebulous "But my DATA! government oppression!" answers to why its a bad idea.
I sad in my original post the only argument agaisnt it is an emotion driven one and how it all seems sinister. Its so deeply ingrained I'm not sure I'd take up the offer of a chip, but that doesn't stop me realising my brain is being silly.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
I say go ahead, one person, one chip, it'll cut down on a lot of fraud in the DWP where multi IDs are common place, also can be used in NHS hospitals (Vets have the kit to read them linked to their computers, so no reason why hospitals can't) to see if you're eligible for full on NHS treatment, if no chip, just emergency treatment it is thereby stopping a lot of fraud again.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
So you agree with me then. The only argument agaisnt it is an emotive one.



But you already do wear that data. Yes it can be accessed and abused, like it does now. Ever worry about comms between your smart phone and smart watch? No? You're litterally transmitting data. Against someone touching your chip?


So far those arguing agaisnt it are giving nebulous "But my DATA! government oppression!" answers to why its a bad idea.
I sad in my original post the only argument agaisnt it is an emotion driven one and how it all seems sinister. Its so deeply ingrained I'm not sure I'd take up the offer of a chip, but that doesn't stop me realising my brain is being silly.
If you think that limiting potential loss and exercising at least a degree of control as to who can obtain what information about you is emotive rather than practical data protection, I shall leave you in peace to write your pin numbers on your bank cards and leave your front door unlocked.
 

philc

LE
So you agree with me then. The only argument agaisnt it is an emotive one.



But you already do wear that data. Yes it can be accessed and abused, like it does now. Ever worry about comms between your smart phone and smart watch? No? You're litterally transmitting data. Against someone touching your chip?


So far those arguing agaisnt it are giving nebulous "But my DATA! government oppression!" answers to why its a bad idea.
I sad in my original post the only argument agaisnt it is an emotion driven one and how it all seems sinister. Its so deeply ingrained I'm not sure I'd take up the offer of a chip, but that doesn't stop me realising my brain is being silly.
I personally am pay as you go, with everything turned of as I move around however I take your point. Again my objection is data theft, not government oppression.

I say go ahead, one person, one chip, it'll cut down on a lot of fraud in the DWP where multi IDs are common place, also can be used in NHS hospitals (Vets have the kit to read them linked to their computers, so no reason why hospitals can't) to see if you're eligible for full on NHS treatment, if no chip, just emergency treatment it is thereby stopping a lot of fraud again.
There in lies the problem, you carry your data around, your medical records, someone steals thats, gets your data and then gets free medical treatment, thats going to be a big winning scam in the future.
 

Bob65

Old-Salt
The only objection is the emotive one, that it seems somewhat sinister. This is likely from two sources, science fiction, and attempts to monitor society such as NAZI Germany tatoo'ing numbers onto people.
A more relevant objection is just that the technology isn't very good, and there is an awful lot of it to do even the simplest thing once you start to get "smart". Such as your broadband is down and your smart lock can't talk to the cloud and now you can't get into your house and you gave up your old fashioned physical key in favour of a chip because the only objections were "emotive"...
 

Latest Threads

Top