Author: Garnet » June 3, 2006, 9:56 pm
A chap by the name of Mark Nestmann provided this related editorial in an investment newsletter that I came across on May 10/2006:
'As more industries point out the advantages of implanting microchips under individuals' skin, you have to wonder if the day will come when resistance to this new "safer, easier" method of identification really will be futile.
Banks are already excited about the prospects of implantable microchips. Credit and debit cards can be lost or stolen, putting your money at risk. But an implanted microchip can also link you directly to your bank account and can never be lost. In addition, it eliminates the need to use cash. Why risk using cash, which can be lost or stolen, when a more secure microchip implant is available?
Banks also dislike cash, because it doesn't earn money for the bank. Governments don't like cash because cash isn't easily tracked. It doesn't take much imagination to predict that once implantable microchips are widely used for financial transactions, momentum will build for cash to be eliminated (as a security and anti-crime measure, of course).
A world with most humans living with implantable microchips could evolve into the ultimate police state. Microchips would replace all of current forms of ID such as passports, driver's licenses, social security and credit/debit cards. You might not be able to withdraw money from the bank without it, receive benefits from the government without it or buy or sell anything without it. The chip would also include data on your family history, address, occupation, criminal record, income tax information etc.
At the touch of a button, your assets could be frozen, medical treatment denied, etc. The ultimate punishment would be to have your chip deactivated. In that case, you could no longer exist, since all personal and financial interactions would require verification of identity and confirmation of sufficient assets to complete a transaction.
Yet, most people would probably go along with the system, because of its potential to reduce crime, make medical care more accessible, etc. "There are enough benefits that outweigh the concerns people have about privacy," claims ADS Chairman and CEO Richard Sullivan. It's even possible that an advanced microchip could be equipped with a satellite modem to allow you to browse the Internet anywhere you are. This ability begins to approach the "collective consciousness" achieved by the fictional Borg.
Proponents of implantable microchips deny such a nightmare scenario could come to pass, because their use is "voluntary." But "voluntary" is not an appropriate word to describe something that might one day be required to merely exist as a human being. I have the option of eating at different times of the day, but it cannot be said that for me eating is "voluntary."
An example of how "voluntary" is actually "involuntary" recently emerged from Great Britain, where the Tory party has proposed that pedophiles receive microchip implants after their release from prison that would allow them to be tracked by satellite. Release would be conditional on "voluntarily" receiving an implant. The government would know not only whether pedophiles visited locations such as schools or parks but, based on a proposal by one company, whether they are sexually excited.
What politician in Britain or anywhere else has the guts to stand up in favor of the privacy rights of pedophiles? Yet, by implanting microchips into the likes of pedophiles and other persons whose proclivities disgust most people, we begin descending a slippery slope into Borg-dom.
An industry that's built around tagging human beings against their will grow powerful as it consumes tax dollars and forges alliances with the rich and politically connected. Like all industries, it will try to expand its market, and create products and scenarios to make expansion politically expedient.
Lobbyists will funnel campaign contributions to politicians and urge them to expand mandatory chipping, say to parolees and ex-felons. Once this is accomplished, they'll argue that society would be safer if all convicted criminals had a chip implant. Next (for safety's sake, of course) lawmakers will require workers in high-risk or high-security occupations-police, prison guards, drivers transporting hazardous materials, etc.-to be chipped. After that, potential offenders will be tagged involuntarily-e.g., gun owners, persons working with children ...ANYONE.
There should be a core principle that microchips should never be implanted in anyone, unless it's a truly voluntary act. You'll be reading a lot about implantable microchips in the future. When governments begin proposing their use to track society's undesirables, I hope that you have the courage to stand up for their rights. For by defending their rights, you defend your own, and prevent society's descent into the Borg.'
