Wisconsin Company to Implant Microchips in Employees

I can see some cool benefits to this kind of thing, but my main concerns are 1) privacy, obviously - they'd need to bend over backwards to convince me that there isn't something big brothery going on with it, and 2) these seem to put the person who's implanted at risk. I worry about hands being chopped off and shit. If this kind of thing becomes the norm and everyone pays for everything with the chip, wouldn't criminals just start murdering people or lopping off body parts in order to use other people's chips? Remember the eyeball thing in Minority Report? I think it might be a good thing that cards and phones can just be stolen. It's safer.

I would seriously think about getting this.......tough decision though

brianlux said:

I suppose if I had severe dementia and they wanted to chip me in case I went wandering that would be OK.  In other words, I would have to be out of my mind to do this!

Yes, actually GPS chips are a fantastic idea for children or senile seniors who wander. I would fully support that kind of thing, assuming there was a law about when it had to be removed from the children. I would say that 13 years old would be a good time for removal.

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

I suppose if I had severe dementia and they wanted to chip me in case I went wandering that would be OK.  In other words, I would have to be out of my mind to do this!

Yes, actually GPS chips are a fantastic idea for children or senile seniors who wander. I would fully support that kind of thing, assuming there was a law about when it had to be removed from the children. I would say that 13 years old would be a good time for removal.

I wouldn't chip my kid.  I think doing so would destroy any chance of ever developing a sense of trust in them or their own sense of personal responsibility. 

Just don't tell them. They're not going to know the difference when they're little, and the only reason you would ever use it is because they disappeared. That's why I'm saying they need to be removed at a young age. So that parents don't use them to track their movements. But that is a moot point when they are young, since kids don't go wandering around alone anymore. I'm just saying they would be a good device for when they're little in case of kidnappings or if they get lost. I'm not even suggesting the parents should necessarily be able to track them themselves. Perhaps only the authorities could track it when the kid is reported missing or something. I would never suggest that such a thing be used in a way that restricts freedom.

WhatYouTaughtMe said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

I suppose if I had severe dementia and they wanted to chip me in case I went wandering that would be OK.  In other words, I would have to be out of my mind to do this!

Yes, actually GPS chips are a fantastic idea for children or senile seniors who wander. I would fully support that kind of thing, assuming there was a law about when it had to be removed from the children. I would say that 13 years old would be a good time for removal.

I wouldn't chip my kid.  I think doing so would destroy any chance of ever developing a sense of trust in them or their own sense of personal responsibility. 

I won't even put a chip in my dog. I understand why people do, but it's not for me. 

Why in the world wouldn't you put a chip in your dog??? That is how vets and the SPCA can easily find the owners of lost dogs. They're fantastic.

PJ_Soul said:

WhatYouTaughtMe said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

I suppose if I had severe dementia and they wanted to chip me in case I went wandering that would be OK.  In other words, I would have to be out of my mind to do this!

Yes, actually GPS chips are a fantastic idea for children or senile seniors who wander. I would fully support that kind of thing, assuming there was a law about when it had to be removed from the children. I would say that 13 years old would be a good time for removal.

I wouldn't chip my kid.  I think doing so would destroy any chance of ever developing a sense of trust in them or their own sense of personal responsibility. 

I won't even put a chip in my dog. I understand why people do, but it's not for me. 

Why in the world wouldn't you put a chip in your dog??? That is how vets and the SPCA can easily find the owners of lost dogs. They're fantastic.

I agree. Not having a chip can be a death sentence for a dog. Gods forbid your poor, furry friend ends up in a high kill shelter with no way to identify it or locate you. Chips are cheap insurance for getting your dog back in the event it gets loose and runs away. A collar with identification tags is a good method, but if the dog slips the collar, or if you forget to put the collar on in the morning and the dog bolts, the collar and tags are worthless. But the chip is always there, and every vet and most groomers have scanners that can instantly identify the dog and its owner within seconds. I think it is irresponsible not to chip a dog. 

PJ_Soul said:

hedonist said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

I suppose if I had severe dementia and they wanted to chip me in case I went wandering that would be OK.  In other words, I would have to be out of my mind to do this!

Yes, actually GPS chips are a fantastic idea for children or senile seniors who wander. I would fully support that kind of thing, assuming there was a law about when it had to be removed from the children. I would say that 13 years old would be a good time for removal.

I wouldn't chip my kid.  I think doing so would destroy any chance of ever developing a sense of trust in them or their own sense of personal responsibility. 

Just don't tell them. They're not going to know the difference when they're little, and the only reason you would ever use it is because they disappeared. That's why I'm saying they need to be removed at a young age. So that parents don't use them to track their movements. But that is a moot point when they are young, since kids don't go wandering around alone anymore. I'm just saying they would be a good device for when they're little in case of kidnappings or if they get lost. I'm not even suggesting the parents should necessarily be able to track them themselves. Perhaps only the authorities could track it when the kid is reported missing or something. I would never suggest that such a thing be used in a way that restricts freedom.

Don't tell them?  So at 13 or so, just lay it on them that you've kept from them the fact they've had a device in them for years?  That'd blow my parental trust big time.  Probably fatten some therapists' wallets too.

Parents could deal with it any time they like. Tell them, don't, whatever. But I simply don't think that have a GPS chip that can't even be used unless the kid goes missing would destroy trust or put the kid into therapy. That's pretty dramatic.

Maybe I'm dramatic then?  All I know is it'd fuck with me at that age.  And who knows what the parameters would be when "used".

PJ_Soul said:

hedonist said:

PJ_Soul said:

hedonist said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

I suppose if I had severe dementia and they wanted to chip me in case I went wandering that would be OK.  In other words, I would have to be out of my mind to do this!

Yes, actually GPS chips are a fantastic idea for children or senile seniors who wander. I would fully support that kind of thing, assuming there was a law about when it had to be removed from the children. I would say that 13 years old would be a good time for removal.

I wouldn't chip my kid.  I think doing so would destroy any chance of ever developing a sense of trust in them or their own sense of personal responsibility. 

Just don't tell them. They're not going to know the difference when they're little, and the only reason you would ever use it is because they disappeared. That's why I'm saying they need to be removed at a young age. So that parents don't use them to track their movements. But that is a moot point when they are young, since kids don't go wandering around alone anymore. I'm just saying they would be a good device for when they're little in case of kidnappings or if they get lost. I'm not even suggesting the parents should necessarily be able to track them themselves. Perhaps only the authorities could track it when the kid is reported missing or something. I would never suggest that such a thing be used in a way that restricts freedom.

Don't tell them?  So at 13 or so, just lay it on them that you've kept from them the fact they've had a device in them for years?  That'd blow my parental trust big time.  Probably fatten some therapists' wallets too.

Parents could deal with it any time they like. Tell them, don't, whatever. But I simply don't think that have a GPS chip that can't even be used unless the kid goes missing would destroy trust or put the kid into therapy. That's pretty dramatic.

Maybe I'm dramatic then?  All I know is it'd fuck with me at that age.  And who knows what the parameters would be when "used".

Parameters would be important. That's why I mentioned that laws would have to be applied and that there would indeed be real rules about when it's used.... I dunno, I just figure that any parents whose kid disappeared would probably think this is a great idea. Especially for those whose kid ended up raped, murdered, or just never came back.

Those would be some great uses. I actually can't believe it hasn't happened yet. It doesn't have to be mandatory, but an option for parents of the child if they are a victim of a crime or missing. I think it should be the parent's decision up until they are 18 or if there was an assigned guardian (vulnerable adults, etc.). Think of all the money saved on search and rescue and criminal investigations.