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.

 

House Passes Bill Allowing Government to Microchip Citizens with “Mental Disabilities”

page: 10
60
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   

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.


One day I hope to find the courage to disclose what I signed up here years ago for but have been reluctant to for so many reasons. But your mother has no clue how lucky she may be after the life-destroying albeit rather rare effect a flu-vaccine is the most likely candidate to have had on me. And im not talking about autism or anything out there in the news but nothing short of a waking nightmare I fear ill eventually have one escape from




posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: MetalChickAmy
a reply to: TonyS

How about you lead the way and chip yourself and your entire family?


Are you mentally deficient? It seems to me since this chip is directed at mentals...people who have been INVOLUNTARILY committed should already be tracked. And should have been a long time ago.



posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   

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!



posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 02:12 AM
link   

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.


It's describing a microchip. So, a microchip being used isn't the person being chipped? Do tell.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Will this law stimulate jobs and the economy?



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: [post=21646490]GreyScale[/po


Depending on the definition of "Disorder" That might mean most of the population of the U.S.A or everyone who isn't normal. Since they are chipping dogs, we now know how they think of us.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   

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.


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!



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   

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.




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".



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   

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.


There could be some cases where such a device is handy, but such should be decided by the family, not by the government.



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".


You trust that? Tracking devices can be very small.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The smallest commercial gps is still about the size of a solid bottle cap. And the battery needs recharged often. It takes power to communicate with satellites, although some secret technology could use radioactivity, in case you need something to be paranoid of.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Good to see those "freedom loving, small government, constitution loving" Republicans taking our rights away and shredding the constitution again.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

You trust that? Tracking devices can be very small.


I know it - it's not a matter of trust. I design stuff like this. I are an radio enguner


There are lots of reasons why you can't implant something with GPS and with a transmitter that can link to something nearby. Not and have it run for long times. And such things are very easy to spot. Because a system isn't just the smallest part. For GPS, even if you COULD put it inside wet conductive meat and have it still work, the antenna has a minimum size, and that's about the size of a big watch. You can't make it much smaller - the size is a function of the frequency. So you'd have an "implant" the size of a half-dollar. It would be pretty conspicuous.

It's not a matter of giving someone a flu shot and implanting them with a GPS or something, that's loony.

This thing is a stripped down cell phone. You can get them small enough to fit on a big dog's collar, if you don't want more than a half day's battery life or so.
edit on 26-1-2017 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
Good to see those "freedom loving, small government, constitution loving" Republicans taking our rights away and shredding the constitution again.


Actually read the article. It's none of this.

eta: well, actually, the article is sort of loony. Read the legislation. The constitution shredding legislation here incentivizes a standard for such devices and a central coordinating point, sort of like Poison Control, so that you don't have a lot of incompatible uncoordinated groups, as well as a legal framework to protect the individual's rights.

It also has nothing whatever to do with "implants". This is a device you put on someone's ankle or wrist like a wrist band. And then only if they've been judged to be incompetent by a court. Like an Alzheimer's victim or a low-functioning autistic kid who tends to wander.
edit on 26-1-2017 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: khnum

Ok, Bedlam pretty much ruined it for us paranoiacs.. Either way, here you go folks..




posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadMoonJester
a reply to: khnum

Ok, Bedlam pretty much ruined it for us paranoiacs.. Either way, here you go folks..



While this is totally different, there's a great discussion behind this thing too. Another spoiler, I'm afraid.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The idea that a person would have something attached is the issue I have.


Well, in the bill they''re talking about this. When a person no longer has capacity to make rational decisions, or if they never did, it's a standard of legal practice to declare them incompetent and place them under guardianship. When this occurs, you can house them in places like the VA Alzheimer's home and it not be incarceration or kidnapping.

The bill discusses legal protection and guidelines that need to be developed for the courts to use to decide when it's time for one of these for each individual person. It's not like press gangs are going to be waylaying Trump protestors and welding tracking collars to them.




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!


No. Pet implants have one function - they are h-field devices that have a stored serial number. They can only be interrogated by a device that uses NFC, and the interrogator both powers the implant and reads the serial number return and it does that by load modulation. The implant never "transmits" anything, ever. It does not use radio. It can't operate more than a few cm away from the interrogator.

Pets cannot be "tracked" by this. If you have the pet in hand and have an interrogator, you can read the serial number from the implant. But that's it. The implant does not send out a beacon, does not transmit, has no power. If the pet is out and about, you can't get on a computer and see where the pet is. It just doesn't work that way.

Moreover, you can't interrogate one at a distance using something like a cell phone tower. Because it doesn't use radio waves. And it doesn't because radio is especially crappy for transmitting from inside wet conductive meat, and it would require batteries, and a sizable antenna. Because a system is more than the smallest part. The antenna on a radio device is proportional in length to the frequency it operates on. And the higher the frequency, the worse the meat absorbs the signal. So short tiny implant antennas stand NO chance of working inside a critter. And lower frequencies that aren't absorbed as well require huge antennas. This is why subs using ELF had to trail hundreds of feet of active sensor cable. And why the ELF transmitter had a 75 mile long antenna, and at that was something like 0.00001% efficient. You don't get to just choose an antenna size at random and say there you go.

Animal implants use magnetic fields. Magnetic fields fall off as the sixth power of the distance from the interrogator. Worse, there's a truly awful SNR issue with the way load signaling works. The return is tiny to start with, and the higher the power you use to get distance, the worse it swamps out the tiny return you get. I think the record for reading an animal implant (which is identical to a Verichip) is something like 28", and that took a custom built rig which read the implant hundreds of thousands of times and correlated the signal up out of the noise.

If that's not enough, there's an insurmountable point called the "lambda wall" beyond which God himself could not read the return because it ceases to be near field, and that happens about 15 meters away.

So, no. No, you can't track a pet with a serial number implant.

What's being talked about is a band that has a stripped down GSM cell phone. One with no display, no mic, no keyboard, no speakers, nothing on there but the assisted GPS and the bare basics of a GSM phone, and a battery. The cell network can interrogate the assisted GPS on it the same way an iPhone uses "find my phone".



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 08:08 AM
link   
This news just in!

Democrats hate the seniors and the disabled! They are blatantly trampling their rights! These poor seniors and disabled deserve to not get lost and be found quickly!



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadMoonJester

LOL yes that poster who thinks mind control,gangstalking and chipping is rubbish yet appears in every thread about these topics since time immemorial...methinks he doth protest too much




top topics



 
60
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join