Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wisconsin Could Ban Mandatory Microchip Implants

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the mandatory-rfid-nose-rings-still-ok dept.

395

01101101 writes "The Duluth News Tribune is reporting that Wisconsin could be the first state to ban mandatory microchip implants in humans. The plan was authored by Rep. Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids and Gov. Jim Doyle plans to sign the bill. The bill still leaves an opening for voluntary chipping." Slashdot covered one instance of mandatory microchip implants back in February.

cancel ×

395 comments

G...Good news on YRO Slashdot?! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198189)

Did I just step into Bizzaro World?

Re:G...Good news on YRO Slashdot?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198200)

It's like that twilighty place about that zone!

Re:G...Good news on YRO Slashdot?! (1)

Mattcelt (454751) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198250)

No, don't worry - it's only the opposites sketch! [ycdtotv.com]

(Though the fact that this show has a website is enough to make me think you are right about the Bizzaro World thing... WTF?)

Re:G...Good news on YRO Slashdot?! (3, Insightful)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198254)

The bad news is that we have to have laws against your employer requiring a chip to be implanted in your body.

Re:G...Good news on YRO Slashdot?! (2, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198416)

Don't worry, I can burst your bubble:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Congress can still pull "mandatory chip implants is interstate commerce!" and overrule the Wisconsin law.

Re:G...Good news on YRO Slashdot?! (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198508)

"Congress can still pull "mandatory chip implants is interstate commerce!" and overrule the Wisconsin law."

Time for an amendment?

Re:G...Good news on YRO Slashdot?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198420)

No, you just took the wrong pill.

Choose the blue one next time.

Re:G...Good news on YRO Slashdot?! (2, Informative)

Ubergrendle (531719) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198421)

Don't get your hopes up -- the follow-up article is about the 'Borg launching a legal challenge...

Heh heh (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198194)

Ironically, here in Beverly Hills there is a proposed measure to enforce manditory breast implants in women. Same country, different worlds, I guess.

Re:Heh heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198358)

That's it, I'm moving.

Choice (4, Interesting)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198196)

I realize that people have a choice as to their jobs and could choose to have a different job rather than be implanted, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Having chips planted into the body of an emloyee is pretty darn good place to start.

Re:Choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198459)

For *now* they have a choice. See the below comments for an idea of where things could easily go.

Re:Choice (2, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198494)

Something like this, it's easy enough to say, "well, you could get another job", but the question is, what if this becomes the new dumb security fad, and 90% of the companies offering decent jobs suddenly require this.

Re:Choice (2, Interesting)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198528)

Than I for one will quit, cash out my 401(k) and IRA and buy an acre or two of farmland someplace quiet and happily live out my days.

Doesn't need to be mandatory (5, Insightful)

Oldsmobile (930596) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198202)

RFID chip implants don't have to be mandatory. All you have to do is make it a rule that you can't fly, or cross the border, or get a drivers license without one.

Then they will be de-facto mandatory and those who don't get them are society's rejects or should be investigated for being possible terror suspects.

Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198251)

RFID chip implants don't have to be mandatory. All you have to do is make it a rule that you can't fly, or cross the border, or get a drivers license without one.
Or you could try to use them in banking in a cashless society [slashdot.org] instead of cell phones or whatever.

Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory (5, Informative)

starwed (735423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198259)

You missed the point: that some companies were requiring these of their employees.

Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory (1)

C0R1D4N (970153) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198260)

I'm damn glad I got my driver's license in Arizona then, doesn't expire until 2049.

Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory (2, Insightful)

Tweekster (949766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198443)

Ahhh, but that is meaningless... Wisconsin had to change their licenses because it would not meet federal regulations as a valid ID for a number of services. So it may not be expired, but when the law says you cant even use it to buy a lottery ticket or a pack of smokes, it is pretty useless.

Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198536)

"Wisconsin had to change their licenses because it would not meet federal regulations as a valid ID for a number of services."

I hope more states do what New Hampshire did, and vote in a law banning the change to an all in one federal ID. They aren't complying, I hope other states do not either. I sent this on to my representatives in LA, but, the state is hurting for $$ so badly, I doubt they can tell the feds to fuck off with whatever funds they are holding over the states heads to 'force' them into compliance with this law....

Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198280)

Luckily, humanity's hope belongs to the Proles.

Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198404)

Luckily, humanity's hope belongs to the Proles.

The Proles are animals. They will never amount to anything. Or didn't you get the memo, Inner Party member?

Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory (5, Insightful)

Khammurabi (962376) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198376)

RFID chip implants don't have to be mandatory. All you have to do is make it a rule that you can't fly, or cross the border, or get a drivers license without one.
Are you implying that Americans will just sit back and let that happen in the first place? I don't know a single person that would stand for the government pulling that one over on us.

Now I do think it's plausible that businesses will start requiring RFID chips to be implanted. The added security precaution will seem very enticing to corporate types. Just start imagining only chipped IT employees being allowed in server rooms, or only "Top Secret" chipped people being allowed into Sandia National Labratories, and you'll start to see the benefits.

The government may toy with the idea, but in the end it will be businesses leading this crusade. Kudos to my home state for being proactive about this.

Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory (3, Interesting)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198435)

Are you implying that Americans will just sit back and let that happen in the first place?

Yes, they usually do. Fighting back takes time out that they could be spending making money or watching television to relax from working so hard making money so that they will have the money to watch television to relax. Or something like that...

I don't know a single person that would stand for the government pulling that one over on us.

Well, I wish I knew some, too. Unfortunately, most people (at least in the US) are not like that.

Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory (1)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198463)

Are you implying that Americans will just sit back and let that happen in the first place?

Mod parent funny.

Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory (2, Informative)

taskforce (866056) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198479)

I believe the term is "boiling a frog slowly." If the government decides this is a good idea, it WILL happen. It's a gradual erosion of freedoms.

20 Years ago I'm sure that phone tapping ordinary citizens without a warrant would have been quite a concern, today it's hardly an issue in the minds Joe Sixpack.

Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory (5, Insightful)

Steffan (126616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198480)

"RFID chip implants don't have to be mandatory. All you have to do is make it a rule that you can't fly, or cross the border, or get a drivers license without one."

"Are you implying that Americans will just sit back and let that happen in the first place? I don't know a single person that would stand for the government pulling that one over on us."
Substitute:
  • The government will set up 'Free Speech Zones' where protesters must stand, set apart from regular crowds
  • People will be held without a trial for indefinite periods of time, without access to counsel and without even public mention made of the fact that they have been imprisoned
  • The government will perform wiretaps and searches without specific cause, and without receiving a court order, or with the permission of 'secret courts', the membership and findings of which must remain sealed
I'm sure all of us would have said...
Are you implying that Americans will just sit back and let that happen in the first place? I don't know a single person that would stand for the government pulling that one over on us.
...five years ago...

Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory (1)

JollyFinn (267972) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198539)

I think the mandatory chip identification of immigrants could be passed for security reasons.
Convicts would be another easy target, but gives image for the tags that should be avoided in order for full rollout.
Some goverment employment positions could require the tags to be inserted, or being goverment subcontractor for certain facilities. Slow rollout there.
Then at some point the access to SCHOOLS could be limited to those who have RFID chip. Just wait until there is such shooting in schools that extra security measures for schools are acceptable.
20 years after school identification, make it mandatory to everyone as almost everyone under 38 has one, and some portion of older generation has also.
Or simply make the ID chip function as a identification for payment purposes too, and get rid of cash.

Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory (5, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198558)

This is exactly right. And if you don't believe it, think of this:

A driver's license/state ID is -NOT- mandatory. But try to do ANY paperwork without one and you'll see how non-mandatory it really is.

I'm in full support of this law, I just don't think it'll do any good when all is said and done. (Not by itself, anyhow.)

Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory (1)

Moby Cock (771358) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198635)

RFID chip implants don't have to be mandatory. All you have to do is make it a rule that you can't fly, or cross the border, or get a drivers license without one.

Americans have an inherent right to cross the border. By stipulating that an RFID tag is mandatory to exercise a right makes it de jure mandatory and thus...evil.

Right now it is mandatory to get a passport to exercise the right. But getting a passport does not require you to mutilate your body. Nor does it enable covert tracking of your habits (other than which borders you cross).

Re:Doesn't need to be mandatory (1)

jtaylor00 (670164) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198667)

I think this idea has already been written down...about 2,000 years ago.

Revelation 13:16-18

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.


Like it or not, this will always be a part of the RFID discussion.

microchip implants (2, Funny)

towsonu2003 (928663) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198206)

any deals or mail-in rebates?

victory for privacy (3, Interesting)

gravesb (967413) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198207)

Its good to see someone is looking out for individual rights. Maybe its because the law was passed prior to the industry growing large enough to have an effective lobby. I hope that more states see the potential and pass similar laws. If it is passed, it will be interesting to see how it is enforced, and how many companies try and get around it. Also, I could see health insurance giving big "discounts" to people who sign up to get a chip.

Re:victory for privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198300)

Nobody complains about mandatory vaccinations. How are microchips different?

Re:victory for privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198356)

You're a fucking idiot.

Re:victory for privacy (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198527)

Umm are you really that much of a moron? Or do you just play one on TV. Vaccinations don't allow you to track a person. Its not the threat of forably being injected that is the problem.. Though many people do object to mandatory vacinations. Its a completly different issue entirly.

Re:victory for privacy (2, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198431)

Its good to see someone is looking out for individual rights. Maybe its because the law was passed prior to the industry growing large enough to have an effective lobby. I hope that more states see the potential and pass similar laws.

Indeed! I'd like to see this extended beyond simple RFID, and worded in such a way as it is illegal for any agency, government or otherwise, to mandate any modification to the body of the individual. (Short of requiring a hair cut, bodily hygeine, and other such things.)

You can't bar code me, tattoo me (that's my job), implant anything in me, or otherwise manipulate my body for purposes of employment, identification, being provided services, or any non-medically-necessary procedure. You can't ask. You can't deny me those services. Nothing. I don't care if I'm a job applicant or a criminal.

Even the remote possibility of mandatory implantation -- in any situation -- reeks of loss of control over one's body, and scares the crap completely outta me.

I appluad the person bringing forth this legislation.

Odd title? Still, good that they are proactive. (5, Informative)

crazyjeremy (857410) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198209)

It is good news, but this isn't this titled incorrectly. Shouldn't it be something like "Wisconsin is the first state to pass a law making it illegal for companies to make microchip implants mandatory". The way it's written it sounds like someone has already made chip implants mandatory and Wisconsin is fighting it... They aren't, they are just being a bit proactive (for once).

Re:Odd title? Still, good that they are proactive. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198235)

We've been proactive in Wisconsin for about 30 or 40 years now. And who was the only US Senator to vote against the Patriot Act 5 years ago? Ours!

Small comfort (5, Insightful)

BRSQUIRRL (69271) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198216)

A legal ban on mandatory microchip implantation is pointless in a way, as the real threat is that they will become so pervasive that it will be impossible to lead a normal life (e.g. buy groceries, vote, hold a drivers license) without one.

Re:Small comfort (2, Interesting)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198470)

A legal ban on mandatory microchip implantation is pointless in a way, as the real threat is that they will become so pervasive that it will be impossible to lead a normal life (e.g. buy groceries, vote, hold a drivers license) without one.

It starts with businesses using them for employee access and security. Admittedly you don't have to work for a company that has mandated their use, but they will slowly become ubiquitous, as more companies realize the benefits of implanting employees with an id they can't lose (unlike a badge or tag). Not only will they use it for security, but you'll be able to buy your lunch in the company commisary without having to carry your money. Then, once people get used to the idea of that, they'll demand the technology be available elsewhere.

It only takes a small group to start a technological revolution. Look how the whole PC concept began. But this is one technological revolution that needs to be monitored carefully. The risk to individual privacy is too great.

Re:Small comfort (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198517)

...and they're more likely to become pervasive if people get used to the idea, which is likely to happen if a lot companies start requiring them. These sorts of things start slowly, and the first step is forcing some set of people to use these devices.

When "voluntary" is mandatory (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198272)

"The bill still leaves an opening for voluntary chipping."

The problem with this is that desparate people will "volunteer" if employers, etc. EXPECT them to volunteer. Just like waiters, waitresses "volunteered" for being exposed to second hand smoking, before smoking was banned completely. Voluntary chipping will hurt the most volnurable segments of the society, who can't even afford not to" volunteer", while the more powerful can stay free.

For this reason, the bill stinks as it is.

Re:When "voluntary" is mandatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198493)

So we should just ban the poor from working. After all, they're only doing it for the money, so clearly they're not really consenting to it. It's practically slavery! Shouldn't the 13th ammendment apply?

Re:When "voluntary" is mandatory (4, Insightful)

Tweekster (949766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198597)

Which actually reminds of the idiotic smoking bans in wisconsin currently happening... They are trying to ban it based on worker health reasons...of course those people are now out of jobs due to the massive loss in business bars have been experiencing. They no longer have to worry about second hand smoke, they dont have a job. Those bans may be repealed in certain areas. and there has been talk of a ban in Milwaukee, but the brewery industry will never allow that one to happen thankfully. Restraunts and such I can understand, bars should not be held to those restrictions since you go to a bar to drink poison. Or how about Cigar bars being basically shut down, you cant smoke a cigar in a cigar bar?

Not mandatory but anyone opting out (3, Interesting)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198274)

will be transferred to work in the call centre.

Well that's how they did it at my place of work. Ok, so it wasn't microchips but I'm sure they'll use the same principle when the time comes. Usual 'security reasons and if you've nothing to hide...' bollocks.

Re:Not mandatory but anyone opting out (1)

(A)*(B)!0_- (888552) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198399)

"Well that's how they did it at my place of work. Ok, so it wasn't microchips but I'm sure they'll use the same principle when the time comes. Usual 'security reasons and if you've nothing to hide...' bollocks."
So it wasn't microchips - what was it?

Re:Not mandatory but anyone opting out (1)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198514)

New shiftwork/on call work patterns - is that all I hear you say.
What I'm saying is that sometimes you find you have to put up with things you don't want in order to stay employed. Would I accept microchipping? I'd so like to think I'd rebel but a 53yr old Sys Admin hasn't got too may career options in NW UK and I'd have to balance my obligations to my family against the obligation to fight oppression.

Re:Not mandatory but anyone opting out (1)

necro81 (917438) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198605)

Ah, but at least this way, you have some law on the books that you could use to combat this. The law doesn't speak directly to this kind of coercion, but having it in place allows a good lawyer and a receptive judiciary to have the law interpreted that way.

There have been all kinds of cases where a company asks employees to do all sorts of "non-mandatory" things, but the implied penalties for noncompliance are very high. Consider an incident of sexual harassment - have sex with me or I'll make your professional life hell. That is another sort of non-mandatory request/demand/policy, but one that has been made illegal, so you have at least have some recourse against it.

I'll admit, "Non-mandatory" chipping isn't quite the same as sexual harassment. The primary difference, as you've noted, is that companies will make the argument that it is a reasonable demand for the company's security, whereas sexual harassment is about someone being a predatory jackass. But, it does serve as one example.

Mandatory Implants (2, Insightful)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198286)

What's next? Mandatory voting? Exercise? Health improvements? Lifestyle changes?

Because we certainly can't trust a person, but an implant we can.

P.S. This is also a great idea for a sci-fi movie.

Re:Mandatory Implants (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198355)

Mandatory voting isn't a bad idea. Lots of countries have it. It may be a burden, but at least it impresses upon the populace that voting is an obligation that should be excercised.

Re:Mandatory Implants (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198418)

Yeah I agree, just trying to find out what others think about anything mandatory in a 'free' society.

Mandatory voting might actually make people think more about how their government is performing and its accountability with its citizenry.

Re:Mandatory Implants (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198615)

" Mandatory voting might actually make people think more about how their government is performing and its accountability with its citizenry..."

Unfortunately, there are a lot of idiots out there, and people who are just plain too lazy to try to educate themselves on the issues and the people running for office. They would tend to vote uninformed, or for the candidate with the prettiest hair, best commercial....or promises of better welfare and free fed money.

Re:Mandatory Implants (1)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198548)

How about the "idea" that this was predicted nearly 2000 years ago in the Bible.

Re:Mandatory Implants (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198633)

Shhhhh don't say that. Someone on the left is finally agreeing with the right on something we've been against since it became a reality. If you mention the mark of the beast they'll swap sides and try to get it mandated.

So what? (4, Insightful)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198288)

The federal government has stomped all over state proclamations like this before, either by hook or by crook. What makes anyone think it won't happen again?

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198452)

It's obviously an interstate commerce issue. Is Wisconsin making those chips? No. So by making them illegal they are interfering with interstate commerce and the federal government can overrule them.

Would this apply (2, Interesting)

jessecurry (820286) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198293)

Would this bill apply to the company that requires the RFID injection? It stated in the previous story that the RFID chips were not required to maintain employment, so taking a job in the area that requires the chips would be voluntary wouldn't it?

Upgrading (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198311)

I can see it now: "Oh, you're still using the 128K chip? How unfortunate. Most of the people in this neighborhood have the 256. Well, perhaps we'll see you at the community tea party, but I really don't think we will. Good day."

Good News (1)

Metabolife (961249) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198317)

Who in their right mind would make it mandatory to implant something in your body? Were you born with the chip in your body, no? Then it doesn't belong there.

Re:Good News (1)

firl (907479) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198498)

I agree with you, however We weren't born with clothes, but to do most things its required to wear them.

Re:Good News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198642)

There's an obvious Reductio ad Absurdum to the logic behind this statement.

Who in their right mind would make it madatory to receive an education? Were you born with the knowledge in your brain, no? Then it doesn't belong there.

Typo error (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198318)

They misspelled "approves", that's why it doesn't look like a true Slashdot article. :)

If I learned anything from Futurama (3, Funny)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198326)

it's of the necessitary to resist the Permanent Career Implant Chip. I thank our friends in Wisconsin for leading the way!

Meh, implanting microchips? Who cares? (3, Insightful)

Cthefuture (665326) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198335)

What is the difference between having a chip implanted and having some system that can recognize you by DNA, heat signature, or whatever? Those systems are coming and they're exactly the same thing except without the invasive chip injection procedure. This chip thing is just a temporary measure until the other technology advances.

There won't be much you can do about it. Businesses love this for security because there is no passcode for someone to steal and employees don't need to remember passcodes. Credit card companies would really love it to help prevent fraud (in theory saving us all money, but we know how that goes). This has all sorts of uses, good and bad. It's coming though...

Re:Meh, implanting microchips? Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198382)

Because scanning a finger or an eye doesn't involve an object being surgically implanted in your body, dumbass.

Re:Meh, implanting microchips? Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198629)

read much? the parent says the same thing. besides what are you some kind of pussy that can't stand a little injection? do you not get regular tetnus boosters and bloodwork done because its sugically invasive d34th-work that invades your personal space?

its not surgically implanted and can easily be removed so shaddup ya big baby

Re:Meh, implanting microchips? Who cares? (1)

Cthefuture (665326) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198430)

Oops, this comment got double posted. The real one is here [slashdot.org] .

Re:Meh, implanting microchips? Who cares? (1)

Don Sample (57699) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198492)

Businesses love this for security because there is no passcode for someone to steal and employees don't need to remember passcodes. Credit card companies would really love it to help prevent fraud (in theory saving us all money, but we know how that goes).
But how good is the security? Can't anyone with the right hardware read your RFID tag, without you even knowing it? And then they can program their own RFID device to mimic it.

Re:Meh, implanting microchips? Who cares? (1)

Cthefuture (665326) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198507)

Well that's a different matter altogether. I have no idea how the particular devices work in that other article. RFID seems pretty stupid but a smartcard style chip would be secure.

I almost can hear the employers... (3, Interesting)

RafaelGCPP (922041) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198336)

I can imagine the dialog between a candidate and the future employer: "Yes, I think you are just perfect for the job. Now, all you have to do is fill those forms, get chipped, and..." "Whoooa! Isn't it illegal? You cannot force me to that!" "You are right but I am not forcing you to take the job either!" The guy takes then the second best, which in turn will accept the chip promptly...

Am I the only one... (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198337)

who had the first episode of Futurama fash into his head?

Re:Am I the only one... (1)

Hecubas (21451) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198530)

Thinking the same thing!

Can't be stolen? (4, Funny)

kratei (924454) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198340)

"Procter said VeriChip supports the spirit of Schneider's bill and would not work with companies forcing employees to get implants. However, he said the implants are superior to employee badges or key chains as a way to limit access. "It's more secure. It's discreet and it can't be lost or stolen," he said."
They think an implated microchip can't be stolen? Um, it can't be stolen as easily as a identity card, but I'd rather have my identity card stolen than have some serious crook borrow my microchip.

Re:Can't be stolen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198641)

You remind me of the story of the owner of one of those very nice Mercedes that required a fingerprint in order to start the ignition. Of course, the carjackers didn't let this stop them, and merely took the driver's finger with them. [bbc.co.uk]

Of course, they usually put the chip in your forearm, which is a bit harder to part with than a finger, but if the target is sweet enough...

Re:Can't be stolen? (1)

flooey (695860) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198665)

Um, it can't be stolen as easily as a identity card, but I'd rather have my identity card stolen than have some serious crook borrow my microchip.

There's been a case or two of a person having their finger cut off to get entry into their fingerprint-openable luxury car, so you can bet a serious criminal would be willing to dig that microchip out of your arm if there was sufficiently valuable material behind whatever door it opened.

Outlaw It Absolutely (1)

Phoenix666 (184391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198366)

The law should read, "under NO circumstances will any RFID tag or chip ever, ever be implanted in a human being," and the penalty for those CEOs or brain-dead MBAs who violate that law should be dispossessed, disenfranchised, and sentenced to hard labor cleaning up pig fecies with occasional breaks so they can be beaten with a clue-stick. The repugnance of this technology should be obvious to people from all segments of the political spectrum, even those right-wing pseudo-Christian jokers for "number of the beast" reasons.

Re:Outlaw It Absolutely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198575)

"The repugnance of this technology should be obvious to people from all segments of the political spectrum, even those right-wing pseudo-Christian jokers for "number of the beast" reasons."

Here you are making a great point right up until you needlessly slam a group of people while showing your prejudice against a group of people. Of course, that is o.k on /. as long as that group is Christian and/or republican (to be racist and prejudice against others is wrong). That aside, you are mocking the whole number of the beast thing while spewing forth your paranoid jibberish based on your own fears, real or imagined.

For the record, I agree this is a horrible idea (the RFID that is) and it should be banned. But try debating it with ideas and respectfully instead of being an out right pig. Otherwise you come across as just another extremist, hate filled, agenda ruled, hypocrite.

That's a decent start... (1)

Theatetus (521747) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198379)

...now, how about stopping attempts [sierratimes.com] to require [dirtdoctor.com] microchip implants [usda.gov] (PDF link; sorry) in livestock [worldnetdaily.com] which would render the few remaining family farms [nffc.net] untenable and complete agritech's [monsanto.com] stranglehold on our food supply [thefutureoffood.com] .

RIDF overload? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Monkey (795756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198380)

In my wallet I have the following cards: two credit cards, two debit cards (one for a medical flexible spending account), a library card, an AAA Card, a Costco card, a blue cross medical card, a Guardian Dental card, a discount card for the local tire shop, and a zoo membership. In the past I had up to four grocery store discount cards, but I got rid of them. (I keep my geek card in a passport holder around my neck ;-)

I can not imagine the pain my arms would feel with that many chips in them!

Wisconsin? (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198387)

Is this because of recent incidents in Wisconsin [wikipedia.org] ?

I don't want microchips in my food either, but I think this law misses the point a little.

Implanting microchips? Who cares? (0, Redundant)

Cthefuture (665326) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198388)

What is the difference between having a chip implanted and having some system that can recognize you by DNA, heat signature, or whatever? Those systems are coming and they're exactly the same thing except without the invasive chip injection procedure. This chip thing is just a temporary measure until the other technology advances.

There won't be much you can do about it. Businesses love this for security because there is no passcode for someone to steal and employees don't need to remember passcodes. Credit card companies would really love it to help prevent fraud (in theory saving us all money, but we know how that goes). This has all sorts of uses, good and bad. It's coming though...

Although it might never become 100% mandatory, you'll probably eventually need to be registered with these systems in order to function. We're already seeing the phase-out of cash and other physical formats like checks for digital money (credit cards, debit cards, etc.).

I, for one... (1)

Nick Driver (238034) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198390)

...definitely welcome our mandatory microchip implant banning overlords!!!!

Pinkos! (1, Funny)

DysenteryInTheRanks (902824) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198394)

Eeeeeeuuuuuwww! I'm Rep. Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids! I don't think people should be forced to have microchips implanted under their skin! Look at me!

Oooh, ooh, I need to change my shirt! My heart has bled all over it!

Could I be any more liberal if I tried? Perhaps if I were a communist. Ooops, no -- even communists favor mandatory invasive surveillance!

I'm all about "rights" and "civil liberties" and "the Constitution." I don't support "extraordinary rendition" of "American citizens" to "cruel and repressive Middle Easter regimes" to be "brutally tortured!"

I don't think the police should be allowed to hook electrodes to people's testicles, or hand them off to the Army where they are held for years without access to a lawyer!

I believe in a zone of "privacy" that extends all the way to the upper surface of the skin, because I'm a neo-anarchist far-left ultra-liberal freak!

I love to read insane quotes like: "Wisconsin would be the first state to say, 'Hey, at least get our permission first'," Albrecht said.

Seriously, man, if we let these pinko Democrats in Wisconsin just BAN mandatory injection of tracking chips into the skin, the next thing you know they'll be demanding warrants for phone taps and outlawing mandatory forehead bar codes!!

No Mark of the Beast for Wisconsin residents (1)

teshuvah (831969) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198424)

Because we all know that is the REAL reason why a republican is pushing this bill.

Re:No Mark of the Beast for Wisconsin residents (1)

firl (907479) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198582)

I take it that It bothers you that it might be influenced by Christian thought? What about banning them all together? I know quite a few Christians that are not happy with the current state of affairs, and that by even allowing people to voluntarily get implants would bother the Christian point of view. Maybe for once they are looking out for a specific group of people that might have a problem with it? Now, if they banned it all together, I could understand why people might be unhappy.

Good start, but better would be (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198434)

How about a law barring the requirement that any person must undergo semi-permanent or medical modification from their a physical state (worded so to exclude fitness requirements etc)? RFID injections, barcode tattoos, or anything else in the future that would be considered rather permanent. The semi-permanent is in there because tats *can* be removed with some difficulty as can likely the RFID identifier, but one could still exclude things like haircuts etc (very long hair is a danger in some occupations such as industrial settings)

What about Jim? (1)

jan.Tol (795407) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198451)

This must really upset Ol' Sensenbrenner.

Do what now? (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198464)

Bans... manditory... implants?

I was supposted to have a chip implanted in my head this whole time?

Guess the one on my shoulder will have to do.

Oh, for sure it's voluntary! (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198472)

Fast forward to future...

Oh, if you want to fly you have to. But it's all voluntary, you don't have to fly.
Oh, if you want a job at XXX, you have to. But it's all voluntary, you don't have to work at XXX.
Oh, if you want to vote, you have to. But it's all voluntary, you don't have to vote.
Oh, if you want to buy food, you have to. But it's all voluntary, you don't have to eat.

Nobody forces you, ok. All your choice.

Forcing? (1)

siwelwerd (869956) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198473)

FTA:

Now the state he used to lead is poised to become the first to ban governments and private businesses from forcing such implants on employees, privacy advocates say.

Employers wouldn't force you to have an implant any more than they would force you to be there from 9-5. You are always free to find another job with terms more to your liking, whether those be work hours, responsibilities, or name badge/RFID requirements. This sounds like something French students would have passed.

Update Constitution and Universal Declaration (2)

Phoenix666 (184391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198509)

of Human Rights. Clearly ethics, common sense, and human decency are not memes that been internalized by business leaders and politicians enough to know that issues like this are not permissible. We need to update the Bill of Rights and Universal Declaration of Human Rights to make it absolutely crystal clear that these actions are not permissible. Then we should provide harsh penalities for all those who choose to violate them.

What's the big deal? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198556)

I'm completely in favor of mandatory silicone implants!

What?!? We're talking about silicon implants? Uh... never mind!

Too Late For My dog. (1)

devphaeton (695736) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198572)

He got chipped a few weeks ago ;)

a little off topic, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198583)

Doesn't slashdot need another general "your rights" category? This has little to do with being online....

Mass redundancies! (1)

Narc (126887) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198591)

Watch out all you supervisors sat there with your stop watch timing the call centre dweebs toilet breaks.. you're about to be rendered obsolete!

The door is still open... (1)

Osrin (599427) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198632)

The proposal would leave the door open for [snip] parents to track their children under an amendment offered by Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford.

Put the chips in the kids! All this legislation appears to do is push the issue onto the next generation, it does not really protect anybody.

Leading the way (1)

liak12345 (967676) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198658)

I hope Wisconsin is bold enough to take the initiative on other futuristic problems such as "WI bans mandatory human to robot brain transplants".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...