The article is quite vague ...
So, assuming the plaster cannot simply be removed, prior to the baby theft, then this may be effective, so long as the baby is in the hospital,
wearing the plaster ...
But the baby is only in hospital briefly ... for the duration of its time being a baby, it will be outside the hospital, under the protection of its
Mother / Loved ones ... which should be adaquate, but not always so in this world, as many news reports tells us ...
Aahhh .. but tests show a tag type device in hospitals to be effective against baby theft ... perhaps if we could roll this out on a larger scale ...
outside hospital .... But it would have to be implanted chip, so the abductor could not remove it, and the baby could remain traceable ....
Which is unlikely i guess ... as it could still be surgically removed ... though may provide enough time for baby to be tracked ..
But ... continuing down this theoretical road ... Although most parents would be disgusted by the idea of having a chip implanted in their baby (for
security) ... i suspect there are still some parents would embrace the idea .. for what ever insecurities they may have, from their own life
experiences, or from advantages pertaining to their lifestyle .. or pregnancies where perhaps one of the parents is not trusted by the other ...
mental instability .. and therefore, denied access to the baby, for the babies protection, with a very real risk of the unstable parent attempting
kidnap ... teh chip may be able to monitor certain vitals .. eg . pulse, respiratory .... and could alert the parent to problems ... eg .. cot
death ... or help in early detection of problems.. the list of apparent advantages goes on .. As opposed to being 'forced' initially ... a small
minority could be sold the idea, and be begging for them ... just to get the general public used to them for a few years or so
Regardless of the reason .. in such a scenario .. where a small proportion of parents accepted such a thing .. its fair to say in 5 or 10 years time
... it would be generally, less, unaccepted by society .. as it has been commonplace a while ... and would be met with less disgust in time ... where,
even more people would embrace it, as it has been so effective so far, with no obvious drawbacks (yet) .... Then, its not a giant leap from there, to
see how such a thing could become mandatory, and continue to be implanted at birth .. at hospital .. and it is at that point, that the baby is
'registered' ... digital birth certificate .. the person now digitally exists ....
So, anyone born outside of hospital, and able to be kept 'under the radar', would not be digitally registered, and doesnt digitally exist ....
Now .. since all legal babies have a chip ... all registered and connected to the same 'machine' ... For convenience, and huge additional security ..
they should just go ahead and use this chip for general ID purposes too .. hmmm .. may as well use it for buying and selling too .... you see where
i am going with this ...
But the whole chip thing is all a bit far off in the future for me ... i know its here, now, in many's opinion on ATS .. But where I am .. they are
hardly going to slap a chip on me tomorrow .. Im sure it wont be an overnight thing .. and i will have more than a days notice ... I will apply some
thought as to how i am going to deal with avoiding the chip, when dependance on it becomes more of a reality ..
It's probably likely to be you guys in america that get it first ... you always get everything first .. then UK get it later, when you's have lost the
novely factor and are done showing off with your new toys
... in the case of the chip .. I don't want it first ... when i see that being forced
on people elsewhere ... it will give me time to prepare myself
Or maybe it will be SA that gets it first .. going by that 'vague' report ..
edit on 10/5/11 by WhatAreSpinkters because: (no reason given)