1) I have often called some people 'Credit Score Slaves'. Looks like it's being taken a step further.

2) Looks like the people it's happening to are accepting it. Would this have been possible in the 70's? 80's? 90's?

It's a slow 'conditioning' of people to accept practically any kind of treatment.

3) Technical people made this possible. I call it 'Going over to the Dark Side'. Like game programmer's that do work for addictive gambling machines.

4) Having a chip in them is equivalent to 'slave brands' of old.

Anybody unclear about where I stand on this, please ask!

 

3) Technical people made this possible. I call it 'Going over to the Dark Side'. Like game programmer's that do work for addictive gambling machines.

Wow, when did "games" become non-addictive?

When people say they are a fan of something, they just never say the whole word ... fanatic.

With respect to the chip ... it's being sold as an efficiency device. Maybe those that have it can't remember their employee ID or too lazy to punch in the appropriate code.

The excuses I heard from the news reports ... like making too many copies or entrance and exits from various areas of their employment are a BS argument. Do these people believe the employer doesn't have the right to control access to various portions of their business. No one even thought of addressing the security of such an item because all one would have to do is chop off the appendage of the employee to gain access to everywhere that employee had access. That was my first thought upon hearing that news story. Yes, it's efficient. Every efficient move comes with a security risk.

Imagine the uproar if a government organization tried that BS. Then again, it took the government a long time to start using CAC cards.

 

I have a pretty high tolerance for pain someone would get taken out when I got home.

That or I would EMP it until it was dead and keep doing so until they gave up on trying to chip me.

 

Alternative: Quit that job.

 

I know, enhanced airport security - chip instead of Nexus card... everyone else flies naked

p.s. sorry, I have to go to the states next week for training, going to be interesting in Toronto

 

4) Having a chip in them is equivalent to 'slave brands' of old.

Somehow I doubt that anyone that had been a slave would agree with this claim.

As for me -- I'm opposed to the notion on principle and would be HIGHLY opposed to it as a widespread government-imposed requirement of any kind.

If I were working for a company that started requiring it, I would almost certainly quit (gee -- so much for the "equivalent to slavery" argument since a slave wouldn't have that option, would they?).

I CAN conceive of situations in which I very possibly MIGHT consider agreeing to it. But the WHY would have to be ultra compelling. For instance, while there's not a chance in hell that I would consider something like this as a means of controlling access to a company's financial records, I might well consider it as one part of a comprehensive protocol for controlling access to and authorization to release nuclear weapons.

Now, on the other end, ask me how I would feel about it as a requirement for something like receiving government assistance. I would have to think about it. If the chip could/would be removed as soon as you were no longer on assistance, I might agree to it -- I definitely would not if this were not the case. But I really would have to think about it.

 

If you invest in yourself, for yourself, you will have the option to walk away from such an oppressive regime. I've done it more than once.

 

Alternative: Quit that job.

The problem is most businesses would start requiring implanted chips and eventually all of them would require you to accept it.

So although you could quit your current employer, you would have no other place to go.

It's an example of the old phrase "If you don;t like your current shark, then find yourself another shark".

 

I think that a far more appealling option would be a bar code tattooed on your forehead.

 

Well from what I read there are at least 10 state that have outlawed the idea and even Nevada is looking into doing the same. Right now there was no action taking on the bill...

I do know there was a Town in WA that started chipping people in that town and they could use it for Shopping and banking. I am not sure if it is still in testing or if it has gone away. I know I wouldn't let anyone CHIP me and it seems like there has to be someone out there for our freedoms that would be highly opposed to such things... I know I heard about such things many many years ago and people say that it is written in history and is part of the mark of the beast. I am not into that concept so I could care less about that. i just don't like the idea that someone will make a Scanner that could then scan and steal peoples ID just like changing RFID tags... So No I am not to cool on the idea and I would rather go without the ability to live in today world then have one... I would just go hide in the woods or try to. I would be part of the Underground movement against such evil lol...

 

This the future. Embrace the future. Babies will be "chipped" when they are born. How many have forgotten the numbers tattooed on people in a country in Europe in the 40s. This is just advanced technology.
Just make sure that when you get your "chip" you are not responsible for any real,valuable secrets. You may lose a body part with the "chip" in it for those who want those secrets.
And what is to stop anyone from copying the info on your "chip" duplicating it? Its done now with credit card scanning so a "chip should present no problems. Any so-called security using these methods is just an illusion.

 

Seems that the process of embedding a chip in your body would constitute a medical (or surgical procedure) and be subject to regulation by a state or federal agency (such as the Food & Drug Administration).

The mere act of smoking (tobacco or pot) or injecting heroin is regulated (or even prohibited) by the FDA, so why shouldn't embedding chips in your body also be under its jurisdiction?

In fact, the Drug Enforcement Administration already makes it illegal to put certain substances in your body -even if it's by your own choice. So why shouldn't the government also have the authority to outlaw embedding chips?

Considering the hotly debated topic of abortion, if embedded chips can be mandated by an employer (or the government), we'll see the legal equivalent of another "Roe VS Wade".

 

The problem is most businesses would start requiring implanted chips and eventually all of them would require you to accept it.

Alternative: Quit that job.

Alternative: Shoot the person who order me to be chipped.

 

I have to go to the states next week for training, going to be interesting in Toronto

I told my niece to look up TSA on Youtube. She decided to drive her car.
Bad for you. You have to cross an imaginary line created by politicians.

 

So why shouldn't the government also have the authority to outlaw embedding chips?

The government has the authority to outlaw Universal Surveillance and Undeclared Wars.
Actually, they did outlaw them, then went right ahead and did them.
Are you still waiting for them to do the right thing?

 

The mere act of smoking (tobacco or pot) or injecting heroin is regulated (or even prohibited) by the FDA, so why shouldn't embedding chips in your body also be under its jurisdiction?

In fact, the Drug Enforcement Administration already makes it illegal to put certain substances in your body -even if it's by your own choice. So why shouldn't the government also have the authority to outlaw embedding chips?

While I'm not positive, I don't think this is true. I think states and/or the feds can make it illegal to own, sell, manufacture, cultivate, or possess certain drugs, I don't think they can make it illegal to actually use them due to Constitutional provisions (which means they make everything else about them illegal so as to avoid that technicality). I know I have never heard of anyone being charged with using a controlled substance; it's always a possession charge. They can make it illegal to use drug paraphernalia, but I don't think they can make it illegal to actually use the drug itself.

 

Here is a Video about Microchip in us... From 2011....

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/human-microchipping-agenda/

 

While I'm not positive, I don't think this is true. I think states and/or the feds can make it illegal to own, sell, manufacture, cultivate, or possess certain drugs, I don't think they can make it illegal to actually use them due to Constitutional provisions (which means they make everything else about them illegal so as to avoid that technicality). I know I have never heard of anyone being charged with using a controlled substance; it's always a possession charge. They can make it illegal to use drug paraphernalia, but I don't think they can make it illegal to actually use the drug itself.

I've heard frequently in the news that someone has been charged with "Being under the influence of a controlled substance", so that essentially constitutes using the illegal substance.

I don;t know how someone could get the drugs into their body without "using" it, however, the government seems to come up with kangaroo court technicalities that split hairs to create a distinction without a difference.

 

I don't think they can make it illegal to actually use the drug itself.

"Internal possession" was in conversation when I was in California or soon after I left. I don't know how that conversation ended.

I've heard frequently in the news that someone has been charged with "Being under the influence of a controlled substance", so that essentially constitutes using the illegal substance.

All prescription drugs are, "controlled substances". (Guess again.)

and ps, We The People are not hoping our government will pass a law against chipping people, we are afraid they will demand it.

Right now, the Federal government wants, "Real I.D." which requires millions of people to pay $10 to get a copy of their birth certificate from one government agency and hand it to another government agency. All I can see is a multi-million dollar tax, purportedly to pay the government to tell itself information it already has.

I sincerely wish you were more informed.

 

I've heard frequently in the news that someone has been charged with "Being under the influence of a controlled substance", so that essentially constitutes using the illegal substance.

I don;t know how someone could get the drugs into their body without "using" it, however, the government seems to come up with kangaroo court technicalities that split hairs to create a distinction without a difference.

Again, while I can't be positive, I suspect that if you looked carefully (and listening to what they say on the news doesn't count since about the only thing you can count on the new doing right is getting it wrong) is that what they are charged with is doing something while under the influence.

For instance, it's not illegal to drink alcohol or get drunk, but operating an automobile while under the influence of alcohol is. Even something such as "public intoxication" involves not being intoxicated, but being intoxicated in a specific situation.

Even the 18th Amendment that put in place Prohibition didn't prohibit consumption -- it prohibited the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation, or exportation of intoxicating beverages.