12-11-2018 20:15 - edited 12-11-2018 20:16
Like @Cleoriff I'm retired. But had I still been working I would have said a very firm no. A chip in my debit card fine but not in me thanks.
And yes @jonsie I expect in the not too distant future, babies will be chipped at birth. But thank the good Lord I won't be around to witness it. I'm all for new technology but there is a limit, folks!
on 12-11-2018 20:58
Think of all the jobs they can save. No receptionists, you are scanned automatically when you walk in.....
Utopia or Hell on Earth.....yep, Hell
on 12-11-2018 22:07
worryingly a person to be chipped would not know what kind of info was on the chip or where/who/what could read it, chips can become, no doubt, very much more sophisticated.
I too believe that "for our own good/protection etc etc" of course!" we will be "chipped" at birth.
Nobody can imagine what we will slip into ~ unknowingly/unconciously/unthinkingly or tricked/persuaded/convinced that it is all for extremely good reasons, it won't be an option.
on 12-11-2018 23:16
Definite no from me. The premise really stems from exploiting laziness in human nature and to some extent control. I don't buy the arguments its a more secure way of handling security. Its likely to make it easier to have access because there needs to be a centralised system to allow updates and it won't be a single person to execute that task. Well you can work out how stupid that then gets for someone to do an update to allow a certain level of access.
Then you're into exactly who controls the access to the device in your body? Bluntly put, if its the company or the government then you're a slave. You have the wrong info? Computer says no....
As for efficiencies, seriously how long do you think any company is going to survive with that kind of attitude! Or what its really saying: the company has no trust in your abilities so we will enslave you to this device or you don't get paid.
And for more scary reading, google "mark of the beast chip".