It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: bknapple32
There are scarier Brave New World technologies than a chip imagine a compulsory vaccine that contains dormant nanotechnology,if your a non-compliant they activate it it forms a clot and you die of a heart attack or stroke,then it dissasembles itself and viola the autopsy says natural causes,that is the sort of evil us slow boiling frogs will soon be facing.
I haven't had a flu shot in 15 years because of that and being skeptical of what is in it. I finally talked my mom out of flu shots.
originally posted by: MetalChickAmy
a reply to: TonyS
How about you lead the way and chip yourself and your entire family?
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Eventually, all are chipped.
If it had anything whatever to do with "chipping". Which it doesn't.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Eventually, all are chipped.
If it had anything whatever to do with "chipping". Which it doesn't.
GPS tracking, implanted, sounds like chipped to me!
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Eventually, all are chipped.
If it had anything whatever to do with "chipping". Which it doesn't.
GPS tracking, implanted, sounds like chipped to me!
Nothing being implanted in the article, it's describing a leg band, can't implant GPS. So, no.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
It's describing a microchip.
So, a microchip being used isn't the person being chipped? Do tell.
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
It's describing a microchip.
No, it's not.
Skip the uninformed first link in the OP and look at the other two, especially the bill itself. Which, really, is all that matters here. The bill is calling for standardization of locating technologies for people, which is a GSM band device in practice. The sort of thing you wear like a watch, or a legband, or in your shoe.
So, a microchip being used isn't the person being chipped? Do tell.
The term is nearly meaningless now due to misuse. If you say 'microchip' to me as an engineer, I generally instantly identify you as a non-technical person or assume you mean, literally, a part from a company named Microchip Technology, which makes small peripherals and microcontrollers.
The vague sloppiness of the term makes it tough to know what you mean here. If by 'microchip' you mean any integrated circuit, then if your definition is 'an integrated circuit being used by a person means the person is 'chipped'', then you are 'chipped' by having a phone. Or a remote in your hand, etc.
If by 'microchip' you mean an embeddable RFID part, then those parts can't be used to 'track' people. Despite the hooha all over the net. That sort of obviates it as being what the bill describes. So, again, no.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The idea that a person would have something attached is the issue I have.
And, yes, embedded chips CAN track a person; they already use them to track pets! I know people who had them in their pets. The post where the hubby was stationed before retiring made those a requirement, to have a pet on post.
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The idea that a person would have something attached is the issue I have.
Having been there personally, you'd have it a lot less if you had a loved one with dementia and itchy feet.
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
And, yes, embedded chips CAN track a person; they already use them to track pets! I know people who had them in their pets. The post where the hubby was stationed before retiring made those a requirement, to have a pet on post.
Those don't "track" anything. They've got serial numbers in, and can be read with an interrogator from a few cm away. But that's all. They don't transmit anything. It's good for reading the serial number if the pet's picked up, then they look the animal up in a database by that number, get your phone number from the database, and call you. What it can't do is show up on a map of the city "dog here".
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
You trust that? Tracking devices can be very small.
originally posted by: CB328
Good to see those "freedom loving, small government, constitution loving" Republicans taking our rights away and shredding the constitution again.
originally posted by: DeadMoonJester
a reply to: khnum
Ok, Bedlam pretty much ruined it for us paranoiacs.. Either way, here you go folks..
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The idea that a person would have something attached is the issue I have.
And, yes, embedded chips CAN track a person; they already use them to track pets! I know people who had them in their pets. The post where the hubby was stationed before retiring made those a requirement, to have a pet on post.
As for cell phones, yes, they are a method that could easily be used to track anyone carrying one!