Motorola's electronic tattoo that acts as a ‘mobile microphone, lie detector and digital display

sounds like this is a great opportunity for the emergence of the thought police....and the wonderful governments of the world could sell it as new job opportunities...a win win or lose lose depending on which side of the fence you are on

Well, it's actually NOT a tattoo, although the journos can't quite wrap their minds around it.

It's a decal. A stickie. It looks like a Tegaderm with circuitry on. You can peel it off, roll it up and toss it in the trash.

Just because you're nervous doesn't mean you're lying. For example, I get nervous all the time, especially when I sense people THINK I'm lying.

lostbook
Could these tattoos be the foretold Mark of the Beast? Or maybe early stages to the build up of its implementation? That does make for one heck of a conspiracy theory does it not?

If the tattoos are 6 cm by 6 cm big and 6 something else its time to be worried!

I want one. I never lie anyhow. In my head I have this picture of a glowing futuristic tattoo. What took'em so long anyhow this seems like old tech to me.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

The only problem I see with the implementation of this is how to design it in as planned obsolesce, which is a must for our electronics industry to stay relevant.

How can Google continue to entice people to get the latest update tattoo if they still have their old one?

Maybe via software or BIOS upgrades? They could certainly charge for them especially if it gave additional "cool" functionality. As soon as people's friends got the upgrade it would become a must-have...

So you don't even need planned obsolescence...just withhold key features and functionality and roll it out as a series of paid upgrades.

Of course, that never happens today...

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


Not everybody flaunts their private lives to the public. Be careful when using "we". I'm very selective about what I share publicly and am still even selective about what I share under the guise of restricted privacy settings. I know the majority of my friends are the exact same way but still, whenever an invasion of privacy comes up as an issue, that particular line always gets tromped out as a supporting argument for the invasion of privacy. It's a lie and goes outside of common sense as the majority of people tend to tilt towards sharing only those things that garner a. attention or b. admiration/envy. Gotta keep up with the Jones', you know? Honestly, I've seen a sharp decline in personal posts on things like Facebook ever since PRISM was uncovered. In a way, I think that a lot of people didn't realize just what they were doing and that hit the hardest. PRISM dramatically altered the feel, content, and frequency of status updates and personal photos on my feed. Not sure about anybody else's though.

The way to work around being sued is if the individual consents to it. If you willfully consent to having your privacy invaded, say as a condition of employment, then you have been given the option to deny or affirm the application of such a thing upon you. Contractual agreements are the shield from lawsuit as long as the details of that contract are met. If you agree to something without duress or fraud being imposed and were not under the influence of alcohol, then you agreed to it. Such a lawsuit would be dismissed. That is why I bring up the "employers' market". While I agree that we would normally regard such a thing as being as tasteful as getting implanted with a RFID chip, if such a thing were a condition of employment and we really needed a job, then what we will do and won't becomes really very grey indeed.

Pimpintology
I want one. I never lie anyhow. In my head I have this picture of a glowing futuristic tattoo. What took'em so long anyhow this seems like old tech to me.

I'd rather not give them any more ways to track me or read my thoughts.


On a side note, is your avatar from Stargate? Love that show.