Microchips in every American?

What better way to move toward that goal than to start with the category labeled as “disabled”:

Last Thursday, the House passed HR 4919, also known as Kevin and Avonte’s Law, which would allow the US attorney general to award grants to law enforcement for the creation and operation of “locative tracking technology programs.” Though the program’s mission is to find “individuals with forms of dementia or children with developmental disabilities who have wandered from safe environments,” it provides no restriction on the tracking program’s inclusion of other individuals. The bill would also require the attorney general to work with the secretary of health and human services and unnamed health organizations to establish the “best practices” for the use of tracking devices.

…“While this initiative may have noble intentions, ‘small and temporary’ programs in the name of safety and security often evolve into permanent and enlarged bureaucracies that infringe on the American people’s freedoms. That is exactly what we have here. A safety problem exists for people with Alzheimer’s, autism and other mental health issues, so the fix, we are told, is to have the Department of Justice, start a tracking program so we can use some device or method to track these individuals 24/7,” Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said in a floor speech opposing the bill.

…Though the bill specifically mentions those with Alzheimer’s and autism, how long before these tracking programs are extended to those with ADHD and bipolar disorder, among other officially recognized disorders.

Even the dislike of authority is considered a mental disorder known as “Oppositional Defiant Disorder,” which could also warrant microchipping in the future. If these programs expand unchecked, how long will it be before all Americans are told that mass microchipping is necessary so that law enforcement and the government can better “protect” them?

I do hope we know better than this!

Here is the full story, via the excellent Mark Thorson.


Some government official somewhere would put you into the freaks category. How do you feel about that?

Well I AM in the Cuck category!

Bob - geez I hope that was ironic, if it wasn't, God help you

I thought you were in favor of macro chips in everyone.

"I do hope we know better than this!"

Who is "we"?
"We" opposed Obamacare, but it didn't matter. There is little "we" can do when elites with temporary majorities decide what's good for us.

The readers of this blog?

If you have ever been drunk or high once you should probably be chipped for safety?

That's true.

"small and temporary’ programs in the name of safety and security often evolve into permanent and enlarged bureaucracies that infringe on the American people’s freedoms"

I am reminded of civil forfeiture which started as a tool to thwart criminal organizations involved in the illegal drug trade. It has now evolved into the arbitrary seizure of the property of any person suspected of criminal activity. The person need not ever be charged with a crime and law enforcement is the direct beneficiary of the seizure and therefore has a perverse incentive to abuse it. The local or Federal government has no burden of proof in the case. Recovering your property is expensive and time consuming.

I believe the next Attorney General Jeff Sessions is in favor of it.

Strangely, libertarians predicted that EXACTLY this would happen when civil asset forfeiture laws were passed in the 80s. We've only been complaining about this for 30 years.

Orwell was wrong by only 20 years, nineteen-eightyfour is here.

Technically, all the devices described in the book are already available, and GPS systems are much more efficient than the fake birds in the forest. If you believe in checks and balances, you are delusional, the State is a beast that doesn't like to be chained, Snowden being exhibit number one.

Buy guns, use bitcoins, buy yourself another passport, use Tor, keep gold, use agorist deep-web markets, buy smuggled cigs, evade taxes when you can. Resistance to the State is a natural right of the individuals. Fuck the pigs.

Except for the 666 crowd, this story IMO is a yawner. The USA lost their freedoms well over two generations ago with FDR's New Deal. And if they outlaw cash, as GM Rogoff wants to do (going through his book "Curse of Cash" now) microchipping somebody, as they do already with pets and cell phones to track them, is no big deal. Already there's little anonymity in the web (I just turned on 'geolocate' on this PC, for ease of use by family members here in the USA, so using my IP address you can trace this PC to within a mile of where it is). Using Zillow and other free public databases you can easily find out how much your neighbor is worth, where they used to live, how much they owe on their house, how much money somebody should make in their field, what real estate they have locally or nationally (if you have the time and money, you can even pay money and find out their allegedly secret social security number, past lawsuits, and I suppose even their medical history from insurers).

Yawn. Move along, nothing to see here.

Great logic there, Ray. If you lose a what you believe to be a civll liberty you therefore should not protest the loss of one more.

That argument is grease for a slippery slope.

Microchipping and tracking everyone is quite a lot like handing out cash to dig holes and fill them during an economic depression.

Roosevelt? Really?

Report to your physician immediately for assessment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosyphilis

The USA started to lose its freedom when the Constitution substituted the Articles of the Confederation, saw it raped by the Alien and Sedition Acts, condemned to death by Jackson in his answer to Calhoun '28 Carolina exposition and finally slaughtered by Lincoln at Fort Sumter. People like TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman and Johnson were only the undertakers.

But today we have the problem of technology, Ray. At the times of FDR they used rolodex and physical Stasi-like archives, today they have computers, GPS, open telecommunication, facial recognition, ubiquous CCTV, satellites, soon DNA...

In the next 30-50 years the decision will be taken, either wins the State, our enemy, or freedom, and a peaceful anarchist society emerges. Technology cuts both ways.

Apologies, this was supposed to be posted above as an answer to Ray Lopez' comment, my mistake that it seems to open a new thread.

Well Massimo, I think you are a separatist. I would be a bit more narrow and say that the overturning of Lochner v New York (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York) and the celebration of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr. as a great jurist, as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandeis_Brief as a celebration of a good legal argument, was the beginning of the end.

That said, I'm in the 1%, have dual nationality, travel the world, have a hot Pinay gf half my age, am fully hedged no matter what happens to the economy, and pretty much except for the natural laws of mortality am invincible. So really I personally could care less, except of course if the USA becomes a police state it will impact my investments a bit (I hate to be like those Chinese billionaires that have to smuggle cash out, $50k at a time, in suitcases to Vancouver... ridiculous in our enlightened days). Reminds me, I should network a bit with pols now that I'm in Washington USA. Good to get your name out to the gatekeepers, but the trouble is finding somebody with influence who is cheap. Most of DC pols have a short time horizon and are really just interested in you funding their short term campaign goals, and won't buy you much, unlike in the developing countries.

Don't forget this other pearl of Holmes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

Regarding my "separatism", I do believe that the best world we could obtain during my life-time is a world of tens of thousands sovereign city-states, mostly privately owned, with free movement of goods,capital and people, and in open competition for citizen-clients: https://massimo.liberty.me/it-is-time-to-abandon-the-nation-state/

@Massimo - well the present major of London, Mr. Khan, has said as much as you do in a different way, saying the cities of the world should band together (as in network, not politically) since they add more value than the traditional countryside. He has a point. Also the city vs country divide is common and from what I've read most pronounced historically in Argentina. Argentina...hmm reminds me of this quote: "The great midcentury economist Simon Kuznets is said to have said that there are four kinds of countries: developed countries, underdeveloped countries, Japan, and Argentina"

Good one, saw your website. If you live in Honduras, you're in an even cheaper country than I sometimes live in (the Philippines, when I'm not in Greece or the USA), though for safety I would have possibly gone to Ecuador, however, you know these places better than me (I've visited Peru, Mexico extensively but that's about it). Good luck my libertarian friend.

Any idea on how to get to a situation where the first 1000 or 9000 city states would not be at risk of being chipped off one or more (all?) at a time by remaining major powers?

In the meantime, the quantity and technological level of weapons continues to increase per capita.

Perhaps the major powers could be persuaded to welcome increasing federalization which distributes additional powers to more local levels of government, with explicit objectives including facilitating transition towards the kind of situation you suggest.

Or, more generally, how to ensure the security, in the international sense, of the city states? And what of sovereignty, given that higher-than-city-state "jurisdiction" of some sort would presumably be needed? You might end up with something pretty similar to now, just with additional decentralization among relatively more centralized states and/or centralized state apparatuses.

Good question, Troll, and it would take a lot of space to address it completely. I will mdiscuss the basics.

Once the entire world is divided in, say, 10.000 mostly for profit sovereign entities with free circulation of people, the problem of war is resolved. Almost nobody will choose to live in a sovereign that is a war-monger. The possible advantages for winning the war go to the owner, while the taxpayer-clients would not gain anything, but he would: 1) pay a lot of taxes more, wars are very expensive, and 2) risk to be bombarded. Why they would like to stay there? The only possibility is some sovereign with fanatic people, like a Isis-like mini-country with only willing citizens. A relatively small army could take care of it, provided by a specialized private agency and paid voluntary by the owners of the city states. The development of the economics of the military from 1945 gives an advantage to places with high GDP, rather than the number of people.

In the medium-term (20 years?) the traditional states will tend to disappear. The new city-states will arbitrate the more attractive citizen-clients, leaving to the states the less productive that are today subsidized by the productive through wealth redistribution. Most enterpreneurs will move. Of course the States can institute barriers to exit, like in North Korea (only country today with that situation) but such a country would need such a level of control to be an economic basket-case and would fall under its own weight after a while.

The problem is obviously in the first 20-30 years, until the States disappear for good. At the beginning it is important that these new sovereigns are not too disruptive in order not to antagonize the super-powers. For example, if one of this city-states allows the massive production of hard-drugs to be exported to the US, a air-carrier would likely show up in front of its coast in a few weeks. Better be a "good citizen" of the world during this period. Until there are superpowers and the traditional states control most of the resources, I do not see many problems, provided the freedom is mostly limited to the economic sphere and not too much on the personal one.

The real problem would arise when most of the traditional states are dissolved but some are still alive. In that situation one of those can go rogue and try to blackmail rich but undefended city-states, asking for, say, a yearly ranson in exchange for not to bomb the city-state (physical occupation and annexation would not be such a problem, for reasons that I can't discuss for lack of space). This is actually the situation discussed amply by David Friedman in "The machinery of freedom", although in his case in a pure anarcho-capitalist environment. The traditional answer is a league of nations, that used to be the traditional defensive model of periods when city-states were the dominating political entity, like in ancient Greece or among the Maya. In reality, I think it will happen in a slightly different form. Private security agency will arise, offering protection to the city-states (they already exist today, see Blackwater or the british guys offering protection to shippers against the Somali pirates a few years ago). That seems good, but in reality, nothing impedes the agencies themselves to go rogue and start blackmailing. So, in practice there will be a period in which the new states will be very vulnerable to blackmail, being that from legacy states or new private competitors in the security industry. Well, during that period, it will likely work as the control of territory works today in countries where the police is not efficient and leave parts of the territory to be controlled by gangs, like it happens today where I spend most of my time, Central America. In that case, the city-states will have to choose an effective "protection" (whose borders with extortion is not very clear) as cheap as they can. As an enterpreneur in a situation like that, I can tell you that the market for the control of territory and the extortion has economics very similar to traditional business: good management and better pricing in the long term wins over indiscriminate violence. As a matter of fact, the quality of security is much better than where the police monopolizes the violence and the level of "taxation" is very cheap.

hope this was useful.

Yep, abolishing Slavery was really a great atrocity...

So the ends justify any means?

Oh, and clearly Massimo meant to write "avoid", not "evade" above. Right Massimo?

Southern traitors attacked Fort Sumter, at every turn they sought war gainst their countrymen.

The northerners were citizens of and traitors to the UK.

Before the war, the northern abolitionists pushed for the Secession of the North, because it would have implied the elimination of the Fugitive Slave Acts of the Compromise of 1850 and slavery would have fell under its own weight. Just after the secession of the Southermost States, you do not find much worry in the papers and the speeches of politicians of the North. It was only when the Confederation drastically reduced tariffs that the northern industrialists realized they were losing their captive market and orchestrated the change of mind of politicians and society.

You can say that the initial Secession was indeed on the issue of slavery, the War was on the issue of tariffs and the second wave of secession was for for States Rights.

By the way, Thiago, I think the Secession of Sao Paolo is overdue. Also, Puerto Alegre and the Southern part of Brasil would make a very nice independent country. Leave Lula's parassites to fend for themselves.

Thanks for the PC correction to my obvious mistake, Alan :-)

The anti-slavery element of the country, based in the northeast, used the issue as a philosophical justification of their domination of the south. It was Roundheads vs. Cavaliers, just as it had been in the English Civil War almost a century earlier and it is being used as such even today. At the same time as the post-Puritans of Boston were pressuring the slave-holders of the South, they were engaged in the very real genocide of the native Americans, a program that continued after the War Between the States into the early years of the 20th century. The Battle of the Lilttle Bighorn in 1876 took place in what's now eastern Montana, not suburban Philadelphia. The idea that slavery, extinct in the US for over 100 years, and its aftermath, should continue to be a political football while US government policy toward native Americans relegates them to second class status even now is reprehensible beyond words.

I totally agree. The real problem of the USA (and one of the big problem of the world) are those sanctimonious and nosy Yankees and their stupid shining city on the hill. Nice reference to Churchill's History of the English speaking people, by the way.

finally slaughtered by Lincoln at Fort Sumter

Is this the political equivalent of a burglar suing a homeowner when they fall through a skylight?

No. It is just one of the uncountable cases where the violence of politics (being through physical force or that of the ballot box) won over the peaceful, market based, controversies resolution system, the exit option.

"Why you no tattoo? Unscanable! Unscanable!"

Does this bill create any new authority for the government to track people? It sounds like simply more funding for programs that are already possible under current law.

I don't think the claim of "Giving local police the authority to decide who is microchipped and who is not based on their mental soundness" is accurate.

This now is a bill to mainstream I'm wit it I already tracked through my stores,my banks,phone,cable,so make legal so we no was up ,like I want follow ppl like on computer no there move .Before I move

Private industry was behind this bill and will be its main beneficiary. Private businesses have been the spur for surveillance cameras in public areas and license plate readers on cop cars. The state doesn't have the imagination or development skills to initiate these kinds of social intrusions.

Not in London.

What about the autistic? Would people like yourself get a chip as well?

Thought experiment, how much would GDP expand if all handicaps were cured? Assume zero savings from medical costs, just handicapped parking spots, wheelchair ramps etc.

You're a beta cuck

GDP would go down and unemployment would rise.

would allow the US attorney general to award grants to law enforcement

Congress loves this sort of crap. Of course, the ideal value of grants that any federal official can 'award' to any corporation and the ideal value of discretionary grants that may be awarded to any household is the same. The ideal value = $0,.

Not sure how much credence to give to the article/analysis since the next article down on the link is about Obama advancing the global vaccination agenda.

Everyone knows the feds would start this sort of thing with registered sex offenders anyway.

Facts about the vaccine system.
- Vaccines, preemptive invasive chemical medical interventions, are mandated by the government, either literally or de facto effectively.
- The government mandate benefits private monopolies providing them with guaranteed captive markets.
- The list of mandated vaccines grows regularly. Now into over 70 jabs for a score of diseases
- The putative beneficiaries are not necessarily those receiving the vaccines, but rather a small minority of otherwise susceptible persons, or already compromised, and those who neglect or cannot obtain otherwise routine preventative or reactive care.
- A portion of the people being vaccinated do have extreme adverse reactions including seizures, very high fevers, fainting, uncontrolled crying, unresponsiveness, encephilitis (sp), paralysis, and death.
- It is not currently well understood who will have those reactions.
- Vaccine providers are protected from liability by a blanket preemptive immunity waiver.

Which is to say that:
(1) Libertarians ought to take a close look at this corporate welfare eminent domain system that expropriates our immune system for the public health and safety, as determined by a government bureacracy and by the companies who profit from it.

(2) if you hate the mandatory consumption and cost shifting premised on public health goals under Obamacare, then you really ought to examine the vaccine system.

(3) for a government willing to mandate an ever escalating program of mass injections of children, despite the ever escalating injury and deaths of those children, to that government, tracking systems are small potatoes.

You are insane.

Perhaps. But Forcing all infants and young children regardless of their parent's beliefs and values, and despite the child's medical health profile to absorb 49 doses of vaccines along with the genetic modified ingredients and synthetic adjuncts, heavy metals, etc may prove to be insane as well.

Where do they have 70 mandatory jabs? Isn't it more like a dozen over just a handful of diseases?

Sorry. Misremembered the 70 is a dose figure, multi dose jabs lower that count,

The number i was looking for was 49 doses for 14 diseases by age 6

Maybe some indication of which continent? The name of a country maybe? Even a state or province?

Us cdc recommended regime.

sorry i gave u the benefit of the doubt that youd have enough basic knowledge to ascertain that much on your own.

Alas having strong opinions on vaccines does not require even a passing awareness of what we actually vaccinate against or when


Most of you can already be tracked by your smart phones. Criminals are very aware of being tracked by police, especially the ones on probation and even more the ones with ankle monitors. Criminal gangs strategically avoid the phones, frustrating police. (Gang neighborhoods have lots of loud music (advertising sales and marking territories) and honking of car horns on streets and in parking lots.) In an ongoing kind of escalating electronic warfare police want to increase the means of tracking criminals to the same levels as tracking of non-criminals. (By the way, for a good movie on the history of electronic warfare between FBI and Costa Nostra, youtube search Genius on Hold Official Trailer #1 (2013) - Documentary Movie HD, or if a link to the trailer is to be permitted ..) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-Cx7EXRp8o&list=PLQvADZ1HL22Nxc0NgLkD4tgQHpgmYgZbr&index=18

Clarification: I'm strongly opposed to the House Bill. Some of the reasons are complex but the simplest is that laws create opportunities for police to engage in corrupt behaviors, and surveillance laws are among the worst in this regard.

Many criminals are hilariously unaware of this. Indeed, many seem to believe that their facebook page is somehow invisible to cops and think nothing of freely admitting to all sorts of crimes on social media.

One of those products or services that might become popular if it were sold by a private company as "tracking device for your family member with Alzheimer".

Indeed, car tracking devices are common. But, they're bought by individuals or business that want them. I don't imagine car tracking becoming mandatory to avoid auto theft. Same for people.

I think that current "best practices" would probably be that families can chip loved ones, and then police have systems to "help" find them.

Many would sign up for that, which is scary, even if noncoercive.

Right if there's any lesson we should've learned by now, it's that there's just no need to act coercively. People will line up for this sort of shit.

Enough coercion lined up with the right buttons, and who knows what people will line up for?

Just give the demented person an iPhone and introduce him to Siri.

I was talking about the Congress person who introduced this bill. Let's chip him as he is a threat to our civil liberties.

And the group that gets to decide who qualifies under the "freaks and disabled" category is who, exactly? Governments have tried these measures before. I guess it takes a couple of generations for people to forget how they went wrong.

Despite the crazies crawling out of the woodwork (as if TC didn't intend that), the way the USA handles mental illness is risible. I don't claim to know what the solution is, but the near total lack of legal recognition of the interests of the family of the mentally disabled adult is a sad commentary on our society. You've got two categories of adult:1) an imminent threat to themselves or others, or 2) full rights (except, of course, for felons, convicted criminals, and anyone who happens to be "suspected" of some terrorist "connection".) And - bonus - if you are an imminent threat, we'll just put you on medication. If the medication eliminates the threat, then irrespective of whether there is ANY expectation that you'll continue to use it, you qualify for full rights. Speaking of crazy. I'd have to be persuaded that a properly encrypted, properly secured locating system for those who have demonstrated an inability to fend for themselves isn't a good thing. Of course we'd need checks and balances - and if anyone believes that our current Judicial systems is up to the task, I suggest you take a look at the SEC or the FISA courts.

" I’d have to be persuaded that a properly encrypted, properly secured locating system for those who have demonstrated an inability to fend for themselves isn’t a good thing"

If it's remote, there is necessarily wireless, which means there is necessarily possibility of interception, which in entering the age of quantum computing means basically I don't think it will be possible to ensure that it could be secure.

Quis custodiet ipso custodes? The busiest part of any law enforcement agency is internal affairs. The first installation of chips shouldn't be done on the confused but instead on the cops. All of their electronic communication, including private phone calls and text messages should be recorded as well. http://nailheadtom.blogspot.com/2016/09/california-cops-evade-prosecution-for.html

I disagree with using these in people who have not been convicted of a crime, but this could be a very good (and libertarian) alternative to prison for those who have.
Instead of keeping criminals locked up, where they are unproductive and a cost to society, we could chip them and keep them under constant monitoring. That way they could continue to engage in some productive occupation while they work off their debt to society - possibly in the form of monetary compensation to victims. Once their debt is paid, they would then be able to resume their career more easily, since they won't have been out of the workforce for years. It would be easy and inexpensive to program a computer system to monitor the chips and sound an alarm at an attempted escape or deviation from some sort of scheduled activity. It would probably also be easy to add restrictions on movements, like staying away from bars or school zones (provided that the law isn't so restrictive that school zones are essentially everywhere). Prison could be reserved for just the high-risk offenders who have attempted to escape or have multiple violent felonies on their record.

I would add that the chip would be removed once the terms of the sentence are fulfilled.
Point is that putting a chip in someone is better than putting them in prison. If they aren't supposed to be in prison then putting a chip in them is a loss of liberty not a gain.

"Debt to society"? It's a very odd term. Is a debt to society incurred by borrowing something from it? Is there interest charged? Who receives the repayment of the debt? Who structured the debt and how was it agreed upon by the two parties? When Evel Knievel worked over a guy that wouldn't pay what he owed, was the debt he was trying to collect subordinate to the debt he then owed society? Maybe putting a chip in America's favorite daredevil would have made more sense than paying for his artistic education but it wouldn't have satisfied the state's insistence on the control of all social relationships through incarceration.

Well, if a person harms someone else unjustly, in an ideal state he incurs liability, which can come in the form of a monetary debt.
Obviously in today's society we impose prison sentences, but it doesn't have to be this way. Certain ancient societies used the concept of wergild to mean monetary compensation paid to the victim of a crime or family of a murder victim. Debts can also be incurred in non-monetary form, such as in the concept of owing someone a favor. For criminal acts, the "debt" might be considered some sort of obligation for service for a period of time.

That can already be done with a location-tracking ankle bracelet.

Mostly, with tracking devices, people end up getting caught for minor violations which, due to laws related to breaking parole which are stronger for the fact of not being sure (but then not lightened under the higher monitoring situation) leads to indications of high recidivism among those who are monitored.

Whether you take this as evidence of the original criminal nature of the individual, or instead the injustices related to such monitoring, might be up for debate.

Also, as you reduce the cost of incarcerating people by instead using pervasive tracking, it becomes too possible to track more and more people for more and more trivial things, until everyone is tracked completely for basically no reason at all.

I don't think that's the world many people want to live in.

Do the ankle bracelets work? Is there anyone really monitoring ? These Los Angeles serial killers raped and killed 4 women while wearing them.


They found the guy, right?

So obviously they work?

It is a location tacker, not a brain whipping device to control thought and action.

Anyways, it almost makes the case, on the margin, for those not generally inclined to approve of any eugenics-oriented thinking. a) a rapist and murderer and b) at the same time, dumb enough to do those crimes while under location tracking.

But, what if someone brain whipped him INTO DOING those things? I guess personal responsibility will still just have to apply ...

So, if one time something didn't end up with the ideal result, let's not conclude that therefore it cannot be considered as a less anti-freedom or less Orwellian alternative to "going full Orwell".

Snopes says voluntary tracking though non-invasive devices. No micro-chipping.


An EEG headset strapped to the skull with an external-to-body radio transmitter would be "non-invasive" according to medical definitions.

Let's stop using Orwellian language like "non-invasive" for devices which enable highly invasive monitoring. If it is a substitute for prison, clearly it is invasive, no?

Sorry, wrong free thought. Better hit the pain stimulus button.

Or easier yet, create a library of approved thoughts, and apply "whatever pain stimulus works" to ensure compliance with formally approved thinking.

No need to worry about searching for the rather large list of unapproved thoughts then.

Also, the ability to easily rotate between black=white and white=black as opposite and randomly correct and/or incorrect answers may contribute to public security among those suffering from any deviant thought conditions.

Direct Quotes from H.R.4919...

Title III - Privacy Protections



(6) NON-INVASIVE AND NON-PERMANENT.—The term “non-invasive and non-permanent” means, with regard to any technology or device, that the procedure to install the technology or device does not create an external or internal marker or implant a device or other trackable items.

SOURCE: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4919/text

I know exactly what it means in medical terminology.

I suggest that it should never ever ever be used in a context with any potential applications for monitoring.

It would be better to call "non invasive procedures" according to what they are: "no-cut procedures".

Can you believe that getting a little robot on a wire to enter into your body through your anus and through your digestive system in order to monitor some health risk factor is "non-invasive", and it is not "invasive" until the cutting starts?

And at the same time, "non-invasive" technologies include those with (even more "non-invasive") capacities equal to the EEG headset example referred to above?

Very bad terminology. To the extent that failing to recognize such after this point is made would nearly be complicity on the part of medical professionals who do not at least spare a thought for more appropriate terminology.

There is nothing "non-invasive" about 24/7 monitoring.

So far, it's just a bill passed by the House. By the time the Senate considers similar legislation, the conference committee puts the two versions together and the president (who may well still be in high school) signs it , DC could be under water from rising sea levels.

We need look no further than the kafkesque treatment of pedophiles to have a glimpse where this can end up.

While i personally would choose to castrate them, it is an objective fact that the current system is an outstanding example of bureaucratic hell and arbitrary location limitations.

This same government with discrete tracking capabilities would most certainly herd these offenders into even deeper social alienation and impossible living requirements

I familiar with those dealing with severe Alzheimer's people. Federal involvement is NOT necessary. States / localities / nursing homes have imperfect systems ( non GPS trackers with ranges limited to few buildings), but they are effective.

Things are going to have to change somehow. The technology of today might make it convenient for you to have your very own electronic beacon, but it certainly isn't required for anyone to collect massive amounts of data on you.

Going forward, the only way we have anything resembling what we used to think of as privacy is if people simply refrain from observing others in invasive ways due to cultural norms. Living in a way that is data-hardened is too restrictive to be worth it for most of us, and technology will always make the means available.

Comments for this post are closed