Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Wisconsin Could Ban Mandatory Microchip Implants 395

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the mandatory-rfid-nose-rings-still-ok dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wisconsin Could Ban Mandatory Microchip Implants

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Did I just step into Bizzaro World?
    • 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?)
    • by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:33PM (#15198254)
      The bad news is that we have to have laws against your employer requiring a chip to be implanted in your body.
      • If it's not illegal, what the hell else is there to stop an employer from requiring it? Morality? What are you smoking?

        There is no society on earth "good" enough to rely entirely on its citizens' moral fiber to prevent abuse. Bad news, my ass. The sorry condition of humanity is not news to me at all.

        • How does this post makes sense in reply to a post that points out that an additional law is needed to prevent employers from requiring the implants? I'm not sure how comprehensive this law is but I hope it would prevent a de facto requirement in additional to a hard requirement.

          For instance, if the chip were required to participate in social security or to use US Currency. Nobody is forced to use cash but it is not practical to do otherwise in our society. Or if the new edition of the state id card and dri
    • 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.

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

        Time for an amendment?

        • How would you propose such an amendment? Congress would never propose a constitutional amendment that limits its own power, and the states would never call for a constitutional convention because of what happened last time we had a convention to "propose amendments" to our federal constitution.

          With the current political climate, the only potential amendments to the federal constitution are ones that expand federal powers and/or limit the rights of the people.
      • Congress can still pull "mandatory chip implants is interstate commerce!" and overrule the Wisconsin law.
        They aren't supposed to, because it doesn't actually qualify....but that hasn't stopped Congress from doing it before. Damn powermongering assholes.
    • Don't get your hopes up -- the follow-up article is about the 'Borg launching a legal challenge...
  • Heh heh (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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 (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      While just a hop over into San Francisco, they are proposing mandatory breast implants for men.
  • Choice (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shadow Wrought (586631) * <shadow...wrought@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:27PM (#15198196) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nine-times (778537)
      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 (Score:3, Interesting)

        by nelsonal (549144)
        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.
  • by Oldsmobile (930596) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:28PM (#15198202) Journal
    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.
    • 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.
    • by starwed (735423) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:33PM (#15198259)
      You missed the point: that some companies were requiring these of their employees.
    • Luckily, humanity's hope belongs to the Proles.
    • by Khammurabi (962376) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:44PM (#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.
      • by Foobar of Borg (690622) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:49PM (#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.

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

          Yes, they usually do


          Everyone seems to be reading only left wing news if you don't know about the right wing fight against this that has been going on for years.
          • The "right wing" or the religious right?

            I don't exactly consider them to have the same interests/goals.

            I imagine that if businesses pushed the idea hard enough, the right wing would water down any laws limiting chipping.

            The religious types... I can't imagine that they'd ever go for the idea.
            Mark of the beast and all that.
        • Yes, they usually do.

          This remark is disengenous, as it implies somehow there is some "usually" to the government having implanted people before. "Implanting" is very invasive, forcible implanting would feel to many people like rape, and the very subject invokes a deep visceral negative reaction that, IMO, not only would lead to strong political counter reaction, but possibly VIOLENCE.

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

        Mod parent funny.

      • 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.

        • Hopefully this will work as well as the slow frog boil thing.
        • So you're saying the government has a mind of its own? What, are our congress critters and armies of beurocrats just neurons in a giant, mother brain?

          All it takes is strong leadership for issues like this...but then again, who will really care enought to say no? If people already don't care enough to ensure they have the right to reject something _really_ invasive, like innoculations, why would they care about a bead stuck in their forearm? In fact, how many would say something like, "Great! Now I can't

        • 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.

          a majority of americans support impeachment [democrats.com] for illegal domestic wiretapping.
          • a majority of americans support impeachment for illegal domestic wiretapping.

            Yeah, but I bet I could ask an equally biased question (like "Should the NSA have the power to monitor whatever communications it needs to in order to prevent a repeat of 9/11?") and probably get an equally overwhelming response.

            Heck, if you phrase the questions right you can get people to give completely contradictory statements in the same breath. I've heard polls that basically elicit responses that make people seem like they'

      • by Steffan (126616) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:54PM (#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...
        • Or, "the governement will require proper paperwork and identificaton to be on your person or immediately accessible to present if stopped on a public road, enter government buildings, cross national boarders, check out library books..."

          Come on, people. Sometimes getting new freedoms (freedom to travel) or abilities (ability to travel accross the country in hours) means coffing up some old rights or freedoms. "Nothing in life is free".

        • Oh, c'mon. The "People being held without trial for indefinate periods of time" were captured in a WAR ZONE fighting against our troops. That makes them POWs in the literal sense, if not the recognized-by-treaty sense. Any army fighting in a conflict has the right to hold prisoners taken during that fight for at least the duration of the conflict to ensure that they don't just jump back into the fighting.

          Now the sticky contention is that they are not POWs according to the Geneva convention. Although the
          • by Oldsmobile (930596) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @02:49PM (#15198965) Journal
            Jose Padilla was arrested in Chicago, though as of late has finally been indicted.

            Nevertheless, habeus corpus was suspended for four years. Perhaps this means anyone can be arrested without charge for atleast four years?
          • Oh, c'mon. The "People being held without trial for indefinate periods of time" were captured in a WAR ZONE fighting against our troops.

            Jose Padilla was captured in the US. Several of the people held in Gitmo are Iraqi citizens who were picked up for wearing casio watches - because the insurgents were using casio watches as timers for IEDs. If wearing a particular brand of watch can get you locked up without a trial for years, we're not living in the America I grew up in.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @03:33PM (#15199315)
            And both the wars in which they could have been captured (Afghansitan and Iraq) have been declared as over for years - PoWs are supposed to be released as soon as practical after a war is over. As you said, they're there to keep them from jumping back into the fighting, not to punish them for having been fighting.
            They seem to fit the definition of a PoW to me, and the fact that the organisations for which they were fighting are not signatories to the Geneva conventions is not a reason to not treat them in accordance with them - The US (the people holding them) ARE signatories and so are bound to treat them in accordance with the conventions (they specifically say this). If they are being held and they aren't PoW then they MUST be held as common criminals and charged swiftly and tried UNDER THE LAWS OF THE PLACE WHERE THEIR ALLEGED CRIMES TOOK PLACE - there is no other (legal) classification of prisoner.
      • 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 sec
      • by Valdrax (32670) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @02:48PM (#15198953)
        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.

        Try flying, driving, or crossing the border without ID. Try opening a bank account without presenting your government ID number (aka SSN). Try getting insurance, a credit card, a home loan, a car loan, a place to rent, and utilities for that place without presenting a SSN.

        Do you realize that we have a backdoor national ID card system right now? Legislation was passed to require an interlinking of driver's license record systems. Driver's licenses have to have biometric data encoded on them. A Supreme Court decision in the past few years means that you can't refuse to present them to law enforcement. Originally, this was portrayed as being intended to keep drunk drivers (especially commercial truck drivers) from just moving to another state to get a new license, but today it's being used by remote jurisdictions to enforce parking and speeding tickets with no means of appeal if the system has you wrong.

        We set up an unaccountable national database of people who are not allowed to fly that is based purely on names and aliases instead of more reliable data. Senators have been kept from flying because of the list.

        Police today can enter your home, plant listening devices, keystroke monitors, etc. and leave without letting you know and forbidding landlords from telling you about it. They can tap your phones if it's suspected that someone they might be interested in might use the phone (under their discretion). They can snatch records of what you read from the library, who you email and what sites you visit from your ISP, what potentially embarassing medical conditions you might have from your doctor, and any and all business transactions you make from your bank and credit card companies, and none of them can tell you under threat of criminal prosecution.

        Our government imprisoned people without trial and without access to laywers in violation of the 6th Amendment. Our government spies on citizens without a warrant in violation of the 4th Amendment. It tortures prisoners in violation of the Geneva Convention as well as the 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments, and there is a significant portion of the populace that approves of these actions since it makes them feel safer. It even prevents protesters from gathering outside of "Free Speech Zones" in front of the President in violation of the 1st Amendment, and people still aren't outraged.

        Let me tell you what Americans will do. NOT A DAMNED THING. All this government has to do is explain how it will protect us against terrorists, child molesters, Iranians, or whoever the hell we're supposed to be most scared of today, and so-called citizens will line up to be sheared like the good little sheep they are.

        If you think there is such a thing as public outrage at the loss of our rights, then you haven't been paying attention to in this post-9/11 world. Do you know what gets people angry? High gas prices, incompetent handling of a disaster, and the stink of failure in war. Civil rights doesn't even register as an issue thanks to the learned helplessness of the American people. Just shelter us from harm, and you can do anything with that guy's rights.

    • by Aladrin (926209) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @02:05PM (#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.)
      • 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.

        While the federal ruling is that you cannot be arrested for failing to provide an ID, at least here in sunny (ha!) California, the rules for operating motor vehicles state that everyone in a vehicle over the age of 18 must have their identification. No idea if it's an arrestable offense or not...

    • 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 habi
    • It doesn't even matter. They'll be "voluntary" like the polygraph test at my last interview was "voluntary." One of the forty sheets of paper they'll have you sign on your application before they even consider you will say, "I understand that being implanted with an RFID chip is voluntary and will not affect the decision to hire me." And then check the box next to "I am willing to have an RFID chip implanted." Of COURSE we didn't toss you out because you wouldn't get one! We just decided to go with som
  • any deals or mail-in rebates?
  • victory for privacy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gravesb (967413) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:28PM (#15198207) Homepage
    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.
    • by gstoddart (321705)

      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 c

      • I invoke godwin's law; you obliquely reference mandatory tattoos for the purposes of identification. It's still a valid point though.
      • if i was in the US... id be with you... but im in a country with a population density of roughtly 1 square kilometer per person so realy... people dont even think they can try to pull shit like this here.

        And the moment they did id say "take that microchip and implant it in your own ass if you like them so much"

        No matter WHERE im working i consider that as a law abiding citizen there is NO reason whatsoever that such a thing could ever be neccesary... were i some kind of repeat serial rapist... perhaps then
  • by crazyjeremy (857410) * on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:28PM (#15198209) Homepage Journal
    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).
  • Small comfort (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BRSQUIRRL (69271) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:29PM (#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 (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Billosaur (927319) *
      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

    • ...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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:34PM (#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.
    • by Tweekster (949766) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @02:10PM (#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?
      • Where I live, we have a fairly sensible ban. Smoking is banned in restaurants, but not in bars (or cigar shops for that matter). It's also banned in bars where the ventilation system is shared with a restaurant or bowling alley or something like that.

        So if you want to allow smoking in your bar, you just have to make sure the ventilation system is separate from any other parts of the business.
  • by Silver Sloth (770927) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:35PM (#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.

    • 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 p
  • Mandatory Implants (Score:3, Insightful)

    by digitaldc (879047) * on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:36PM (#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.
  • So what? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GuloGulo (959533) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:36PM (#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?
    • It's a start. Hopefully many other states will pass similar laws. Then, when the Federal government tries to overrule them with a law requiring implants, these states will all rebel and secede.
  • Would this apply (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jessecurry (820286) <jesse@jessecurry.net> on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:36PM (#15198293) Homepage Journal
    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?
  • by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:39PM (#15198326)
    it's of the necessitary to resist the Permanent Career Implant Chip. I thank our friends in Wisconsin for leading the way!
  • by Cthefuture (665326) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:40PM (#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...
    • Oops, this comment got double posted. The real one is here [slashdot.org].
    • See you can lose the chip still...

      Ill throw a hypothetical... Say your car now starts using your fingerprint... If you get car jacked... well... lets just say the jacker is going to want to keep the key shall we... *snip*

      now re evaluate how much you want that handly little security dodad INSIDE you... if someone wants it ... im sure theres plenty of ways to cut it out of you... leave you bleeeding in an alley, swamp, whatever... Hell if i had a high security job this would make me MORE worried rather than r
  • by RafaelGCPP (922041) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:40PM (#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...
  • by kratei (924454) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:41PM (#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.
    • 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.
    • In addition, a chip can be trivially duplicated using information gathered from a distance, assuming there is sufficient knowlege of the inner workings of the scanning unit. Ironically, a duplicated chip could also be LESS invasive than the original, assuming the implanted spot is under clothing. Just tape the RFID chip to your skin or shirt sleeve. Even if the area is exposed it would probably be quite trivial to conceal something as tiny as an RFID chip with costume putty or something similar: when peo
    • in the spirit of correctness... it can be stolen... they just have to brutaly mutilate the person who it was injected into and either take a portion of the body including the chip, or just the chip itself... away with them

      much nicer than handing over your wallet and spending a couple of hours calling up and canceling things isnt it...
  • 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 th
  • ...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].

  • by Anonymous Monkey (795756) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:44PM (#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!

    • Those companies wouldn't want you chipped anyways.

      They like that they've got their card, with their logo, in your wallet.

      Even with advances in technology, I don't see that changing in the near future.
  • 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.
  • ...definitely welcome our mandatory microchip implant banning overlords!!!!
  • 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 s
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:53PM (#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.
  • by Phoenix666 (184391) on Tuesday April 25, 2006 @01:59PM (#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.
  • I'm completely in favor of mandatory silicone implants!

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

  • He got chipped a few weeks ago ;)

    • Dogs are our pets, our slaves, our domesticated kept species. We chip them without their consent because it suits our purposes, and as our pet species they do not have the same rights as us, even if we exercise control over them on behalf of their best interests.

      Now you know how the employers who want to put chips into their employees think of their employees.
  • 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.
  • Hurry, sign the bill! They've got a battering ram at the door and I'm running out of furniture!
  • It could still technically be Illegal to force implants, but if you are "forced" to economically such as not being able to buy or sell (Bible's prediction) then you are still compelled to be implanted... "causeth" (jkv) is not forced.

    Silly politicians, You cannot legislate the end away, you must watch for it and be ready.
  • microwave? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Nesetril (969734)
    is it true that you can destroy these chips by sticking the afflicted part of your body in a microwave (for a couple of seconds)? i just like planning ahead...
  • Because otherwise the terrorists would win.

    As long as we have chips here, we'll be able to export chip use to other countries. The chips will end civil war and promote peace, because countries with pervasive microchip implementation programs don't go to war against each other.

    This bill out of Wisconsin is providing aid and comfort to our enemies. Why, I just heard Osama say how Americans implanting microchips under their skin would be a crushing blow to radical Islam.

    Why do those fatcat politicians in Wisco

What is worth doing is worth the trouble of asking somebody to do.

Working...