Company Incentives

[Trumptonium1]

You'll have a chip in you. You won't own anything at all. You'll have everything leased to you from your dinner plates to your car. You'll just have the right to use your fork and knife, use your dishwasher, and other things. You'll have to sign an agreement when get your new computer that you don't own it. It belongs Bestbuy.net and has to be returned after five years of use for recycling and you have to pay $10 a month for it to be in your living room. If it gets moved to your neighbors house, you have to pay $15 a month, and he has to pay $5 a month because of unauthorized sharing...

If you don't fit the proscribed weight and lifestyle you can't get on the bus.

That's something that is overdue, we need maximum weight regulations on public transport and aviation.

Chips that would monitor such and permit entry are great.

For the record I am all-for the Chinese social credit system so there's that. I'm pretty biased here.

[West Leas Oros 2]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Silicon Valley needs to be burned to the ground, the CEOs arrested, and the companies Nationalized

Yes.

[Free Arabian Nation]

I'd be perfectly OK with this so long as I was able to turn it off after-hours and it was consensual...

But knowing tech companies, the former probably won't happen *Cough* Zuckerburg *Cough*

[Ifreann]

I'd be perfectly OK with this so long as I was able to turn it off after-hours and it was consensual...

But knowing tech companies, the former probably won't happen *Cough* Zuckerburg *Cough*

RFID tags can't be turned off. Or on, for that matter. I think it's wonderfully clever, the tags themselves don't actually do anything on their own. The scanners emit a signal, and the energy from that signal powers the tag to answer back. That's why they're so short range, to power the tag to transmit over any serious distance you'd have to be blasting out massive amounts of radiation.

[The New California Republic]

I'd be perfectly OK with this so long as I was able to turn it off after-hours and it was consensual...

But knowing tech companies, the former probably won't happen *Cough* Zuckerburg *Cough*

RFID tags can't be turned off. Or on, for that matter. I think it's wonderfully clever, the tags themselves don't actually do anything on their own. The scanners emit a signal, and the energy from that signal powers the tag to answer back. That's why they're so short range, to power the tag to transmit over any serious distance you'd have to be blasting out massive amounts of radiation.

Hence why they are used on packaging and also to electronically label parts during manufacturing, for example car manufacture, because requiring a battery in such circumstances would add bulk and weight that would likely be unjustifiable.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

At least nobody has tried to develop ctOS yet...

1)How do you know?
2)"yet"

Globoconnect is rolling on full steam. The most important thing to fight for is to keep like this, you know, voluntary.

[Page]

You'll have a chip in you. You won't own anything at all. You'll have everything leased to you from your dinner plates to your car. You'll just have the right to use your fork and knife, use your dishwasher, and other things. You'll have to sign an agreement when get your new computer that you don't own it. It belongs Bestbuy.net and has to be returned after five years of use for recycling and you have to pay $10 a month for it to be in your living room. If it gets moved to your neighbors house, you have to pay $15 a month, and he has to pay $5 a month because of unauthorized sharing...

I too share this dark vision of the future, and while I hope it does not come to pass, it's looking more and more like it will every day. I call it post-property capitalism.

People think there's no way we'd ever willingly accept such a way of life, but what everyone forgets is that humans will accept any degree of tyranny so long as it is implemented in small increments. The world won't change over night, it will change one thing at a time over 100 years or more.

[Ethel mermania]

I'd be perfectly OK with this so long as I was able to turn it off after-hours and it was consensual...

But knowing tech companies, the former probably won't happen *Cough* Zuckerburg *Cough*

RFID tags can't be turned off. Or on, for that matter. I think it's wonderfully clever, the tags themselves don't actually do anything on their own. The scanners emit a signal, and the energy from that signal powers the tag to answer back. That's why they're so short range, to power the tag to transmit over any serious distance you'd have to be blasting out massive amounts of radiation.

Or just strategically place the monitors on bus doors, subway entrances, enterences and exits to buildings, don't even need pesky facial recognition software, we got your chip.

[Ifreann]

RFID tags can't be turned off. Or on, for that matter. I think it's wonderfully clever, the tags themselves don't actually do anything on their own. The scanners emit a signal, and the energy from that signal powers the tag to answer back. That's why they're so short range, to power the tag to transmit over any serious distance you'd have to be blasting out massive amounts of radiation.

Or just strategically place the monitors on bus doors, subway entrances, enterences and exits to buildings, don't even need pesky facial recognition software, we got your chip.

If you wanted to actually track people then having lots of scanners if the only way to do it. If we ignore the problem of how much power it would take, one super-scanner with range that covered the entire continental United States would be useless for tracking people. All it could tell us that yes, the tag registered to Ethel mermania is in my range. But with lots and lots of scanners we could, as you describe, note that your tag was in range of this doorway, then this doorway, then this subway entrance, then this platform, then this train, etc, etc. Or with way more scanners, we could see that your tag is in range of these five scanners, and thus narrow down your location down to where their ranges overlap.

Of course, all that assumes a government that's tagging everyone and installing scanners everywhere, and really, if they wanted to keep track of you that badly they could just use your phone.

[Thermodolia]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Silicon Valley needs to be burned to the ground, the CEOs arrested, and the companies Nationalized

so the Silicon Valley workers can starve thanks to the US government being shut down.

Oh I’ll take care of that too. Pass a law saying that we use last years budget.

[The Blaatschapen]

Or just strategically place the monitors on bus doors, subway entrances, enterences and exits to buildings, don't even need pesky facial recognition software, we got your chip.

If you wanted to actually track people then having lots of scanners if the only way to do it. If we ignore the problem of how much power it would take, one super-scanner with range that covered the entire continental United States would be useless for tracking people. All it could tell us that yes, the tag registered to Ethel mermania is in my range. But with lots and lots of scanners we could, as you describe, note that your tag was in range of this doorway, then this doorway, then this subway entrance, then this platform, then this train, etc, etc. Or with way more scanners, we could see that your tag is in range of these five scanners, and thus narrow down your location down to where their ranges overlap.

Of course, all that assumes a government that's tagging everyone and installing scanners everywhere, and really, if they wanted to keep track of you that badly they could just use your phone.

We can do like GPS and have three giant scanners. By measuring the time between responses, we can know the distance to each scanner.

[Ifreann]

If you wanted to actually track people then having lots of scanners if the only way to do it. If we ignore the problem of how much power it would take, one super-scanner with range that covered the entire continental United States would be useless for tracking people. All it could tell us that yes, the tag registered to Ethel mermania is in my range. But with lots and lots of scanners we could, as you describe, note that your tag was in range of this doorway, then this doorway, then this subway entrance, then this platform, then this train, etc, etc. Or with way more scanners, we could see that your tag is in range of these five scanners, and thus narrow down your location down to where their ranges overlap.

Of course, all that assumes a government that's tagging everyone and installing scanners everywhere, and really, if they wanted to keep track of you that badly they could just use your phone.

We can do like GPS and have three giant scanners. By measuring the time between responses, we can know the distance to each scanner.

We could. I think we'd end up microwaving the planet, but we'd know where everyone was

[The Blaatschapen]

We can do like GPS and have three giant scanners. By measuring the time between responses, we can know the distance to each scanner.

We could. I think we'd end up microwaving the planet, but we'd know where everyone was

We're doing that already.

[The New California Republic]

We can do like GPS and have three giant scanners. By measuring the time between responses, we can know the distance to each scanner.

We could. I think we'd end up microwaving the planet, but we'd know where everyone was

We actually would, as the power output required from the satellites for RFID chips to respond at those distances would be monstrous.

[Ethel mermania]

Or just strategically place the monitors on bus doors, subway entrances, enterences and exits to buildings, don't even need pesky facial recognition software, we got your chip.

If you wanted to actually track people then having lots of scanners if the only way to do it. If we ignore the problem of how much power it would take, one super-scanner with range that covered the entire continental United States would be useless for tracking people. All it could tell us that yes, the tag registered to Ethel mermania is in my range. But with lots and lots of scanners we could, as you describe, note that your tag was in range of this doorway, then this doorway, then this subway entrance, then this platform, then this train, etc, etc. Or with way more scanners, we could see that your tag is in range of these five scanners, and thus narrow down your location down to where their ranges overlap.

Of course, all that assumes a government that's tagging everyone and installing scanners everywhere, and really, if they wanted to keep track of you that badly they could just use your phone.

As has been mentioned, you could just turn off the phone and your location and movements are hidden till you turn it back on.

To solve that problem. The Chinese are going with cameras and facial recognition software.

[Ifreann]

If you wanted to actually track people then having lots of scanners if the only way to do it. If we ignore the problem of how much power it would take, one super-scanner with range that covered the entire continental United States would be useless for tracking people. All it could tell us that yes, the tag registered to Ethel mermania is in my range. But with lots and lots of scanners we could, as you describe, note that your tag was in range of this doorway, then this doorway, then this subway entrance, then this platform, then this train, etc, etc. Or with way more scanners, we could see that your tag is in range of these five scanners, and thus narrow down your location down to where their ranges overlap.

Of course, all that assumes a government that's tagging everyone and installing scanners everywhere, and really, if they wanted to keep track of you that badly they could just use your phone.

As has been mentioned, you could just turn off the phone and your location and movements are hidden till you turn it back on.

To solve that problem. The Chinese are going with cameras and facial recognition software.

You could turn off your phone, but then you'd be cut off from social media. The horror!

[Thermodolia]

As has been mentioned, you could just turn off the phone and your location and movements are hidden till you turn it back on.

To solve that problem. The Chinese are going with cameras and facial recognition software.

You could turn off your phone, but then you'd be cut off from social media. The horror!

Not a bad trade off

[Ethel mermania]

You could turn off your phone, but then you'd be cut off from social media. The horror!

Not a bad trade off

But, but, how do I join nationstates summer fling?

[Luziyca]

Not a bad trade off

But, but, how do I join nationstates summer fling?

There are always computers.

Anyway, this feels like a bad idea: maybe it can be permitted only if the employee consents, but I think there needs to be a line drawn somewhere.

[USS Monitor]

..and before you judge too harshly remember that a mobile phone is effectively this, for zero real benefit. We provide companies with all sorts of information from exactly where we are to what we're doing.

It's a lot easier to put your phone down and not bring it everywhere you go.

[Petrolheadia]

This last The Economist had a few scary sentences, from robots making shirts in China to the problems of the US unilaterally pulling out of trade deals with no back up and others but this..

"A few firms, such as Mindshare, a media agency in Sweden, and Three Square Market, a tech firm in Wisconsin, have already moved onto the next stage: implanting a chip under a worker's skin. Employees gain a way to open canteen doors and pay for meals in the canteen.."

Essentially there's been a move to provide employees with rewards for improving their health. At a more benign end they provide Fitbit and reward for walking certain distances but the above..

..I find it highly unethical to even offer this, to provide additional benefits on the condition you implant a fucking chip under your skin to monitor you. I find it as odd that there isn't outrage among employees about this. The extent to which we'll acquiesce to things for minor convenience..

..and before you judge too harshly remember that a mobile phone is effectively this, for zero real benefit. We provide companies with all sorts of information from exactly where we are to what we're doing.

Shouldn't we be taking back our privacy?

Someone voluntarily trades privacy for material benefits?

Well, if it's just a voluntary free market trade, nothing to see here.