Forcing employees to have microchips under the skin.

[The Black Forrest]

Why? People are animals. We also do it in separate ways.

"People are animals" is a technical point that never holds much weight in any serious discussion.

It reminds me a lot of the "but you participate in society, curious" meme

Indeed. As many don’t give much credence to “they are just animals” either.

So do you have a cell phone, wearables, a computer, or a “newer” car?

[Terruana]

I would have thought implanting any kind of subdermal device would count as a medical procedure and require valid consent, which should always include freedom from coercion.

I guess someone is probably gonna compare this to requiring staff to be vaccinated, but the difference is that vaccines are for the protection of those you come into contact with as well as yourself, and its more reasonable for an employer to decide you are unable to safely do the job without a vaccine than without a microchip.

[Esternial]

Well, yes. I haven't seen an instance where it's not, assuming you're not including cost for the ink in your printer and the electricity to run it.

What exactly are you suggesting?

I'm suggesting that printed and app-based alternatives are readily available just only as long is a government thing mean to fight a pandemic, but those alternatives are likely to disappear or to be made hard to get in another context - i.e. an employer requiring something from the employees.

Microchips may be convenient but there's no way it would be the one and only option. Again, as I pointed out, GDPR already does provide some limitation to an employers "freedom" to mandate microchips.

You've yet to bring forward anything convincing to make me agree with your notion that microchip mandates are looming on the horizon. What you're saying just sounds like Alex Jones-esque paranoia.

[Alvecia]

We routinely do a lot to animals that we wouldn't think of doing to people, I don't think the comparison is a particularly strong one.

You were the one who compared it to commercial fusion 30 years down the road. I am demonstrating that the technology is here, and its use is simple, easy to do, and being done in wide scale in animals, and have shown its immediate proposed use in humans.

What more do you want?

I specifically said "technically possible, not practically useful" yet somehow that's been swung to mean "we don't have the technology to microchip all workers".
The immediately proposed use in humans is about as likely as a Musk colony on Mars by the end of the year.
"Some startup somewhere no-one has ever heard of has a chip" is a far cry from "Google is iminently prepared to require sub dermal implants for all employees"

"People are animals" is a technical point that never holds much weight in any serious discussion.

It reminds me a lot of the "but you participate in society, curious" meme

Indeed. As many don’t give much credence to “they are just animals” either.

So do you have a cell phone, wearables, a computer, or a “newer” car?

I'm not going to let myself get akchusally'd into a discussion about the finer points of human biology. Nor am I interested nin playing Socrates 101. If you have a point make it, instead of asking redundant questions.

[Ethel mermania]

You were the one who compared it to commercial fusion 30 years down the road. I am demonstrating that the technology is here, and its use is simple, easy to do, and being done in wide scale in animals, and have shown its immediate proposed use in humans.

What more do you want?

I specifically said "technically possible, not practically useful" yet somehow that's been swung to mean "we don't have the technology to microchip all workers".
The immediately proposed use in humans is about as likely as a Musk colony on Mars by the end of the year.
"Some startup somewhere no-one has ever heard of has a chip" is a far cry from "Google is iminently prepared to require sub dermal implants for all employees"

Indeed. As many don’t give much credence to “they are just animals” either.

So do you have a cell phone, wearables, a computer, or a “newer” car?

I'm not going to let myself get akchusally'd into a discussion about the finer points of human biology. Nor am I interested nin playing Socrates 101. If you have a point make it, instead of asking redundant questions.

You are working way to hard at this


https://www.france24.com/en/video/20211 ... ip-implant

[Balkannia]

No one have problem with it as long it is voluntary and with consent. Problem begins when it is forced upon employees(or the population). Needless to say that conflicts with ethics, moral, logic and reason, everything we stand for the last 200 years.

[The Blaatschapen]

No one have problem with it as long it is voluntary and with consent. Problem begins when it is forced upon employees(or the population). Needless to say that conflicts with ethics, moral, logic and reason, everything we stand for the last 200 years.

The relationship between an employer and employee is not one of equals. So consent gets to be a trickier concept. Employees can be coerced, so how much it is really voluntary in such a case remains to be seen.

[Alvecia]

:mad:

I specifically said "technically possible, not practically useful" yet somehow that's been swung to mean "we don't have the technology to microchip all workers".
The immediately proposed use in humans is about as likely as a Musk colony on Mars by the end of the year.
"Some startup somewhere no-one has ever heard of has a chip" is a far cry from "Google is iminently prepared to require sub dermal implants for all employees"


I'm not going to let myself get akchusally'd into a discussion about the finer points of human biology. Nor am I interested nin playing Socrates 101. If you have a point make it, instead of asking redundant questions.

You are working way to hard at this


https://www.france24.com/en/video/20211 ... ip-implant

Alright fair (damn swedes *shakes fist*). I remain unconvinced this will be particularly widespread, nor in any danger of being a job requirement in the foreseeable future. Certainly not enough to make specific laws for it, given many existing laws could convievable cover such cases.

There's certainly something of a disconnect between a bunch of people in sweden and a US state. Either someone there read this exact article, or this was a preemptive attempt to prevent the mark of the beast

[Balkannia]

The relationship between an employer and employee is not one of equals. So consent gets to be a trickier concept. Employees can be coerced, so how much it is really voluntary in such a case remains to be seen.

They are equal under the law, that's what matters, and neither employee or employer can get advantage of eachother or the law unless using unlawful practices, that's the point.
The law must regulate such practice before employers start chipping their workers. Now if such law is against ethics, moral, logic and reason, that's another story, but the citizens must comply if they consented to live in a territory in which such state have authority and jurisdiction.

[Free Norfolk City]

First the source:

Indiana is the latest state to prohibit employers from requiring job seekers or employees to have devices such as microchips or radio frequency identification device (RFID) tags implanted into their bodies as a condition of employment.

The new law banning mandated implantable technology is set to take effect July 1.

No Indiana employers or workplaces in any other state require such devices to be implanted, but lawmakers in 11 states now have made their position known in advance of any interest in implantable technology.

"It's a pre-emptive strike," said Susan Kline, a partner at law firm Faegre Drinker in Indianapolis. "It sends a signal of 'don't even think about it.' Why? First, because it's invasive. Then there are the ramifications in terms of lack of control over what data is collected, and how it is used, and how device mandates put employees in the position of feeling pressured or at risk of retaliation. The Indiana law contains a prohibition against retaliation for refusing to voluntarily receive a device implant."

Full article here:

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/ ... rkers.aspx

My thoughts on the matter: I think that this technology must be used just only for medical reasons and it should be always voluntary, it should also be granted the right to remove the device for free at any time.
It's a major threat even used as convenience on a voluntary basis, and people should avoid it, some campaign against this should be started.
It's even more a threat when it's subtly make mandatory by employers.

The article doesn't cite another potential application: tagging criminals who aren't in jail but under restrictions. This is potentially the next major spread of the technology.

Other random thought:
Employers are banned from requiring device implants in Arkansas, California, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and Wisconsin. And similar proposals have been pending in the state legislatures of Iowa, Rhode Island and Tennessee.
So it doesn't seems that on such issue there's an ideological war between Republicans and Democrats, it's more a bipartisan issue. That's very interesting, the sensibilities seems similar in both parties.

What do you think, NS?

Are you advocating this? As an authoritarian feminist (redundant by definition), it seems like your cup of tea.

[The Blaatschapen]

The relationship between an employer and employee is not one of equals. So consent gets to be a trickier concept. Employees can be coerced, so how much it is really voluntary in such a case remains to be seen.

They are equal under the law, that's what matters, and neither employee or employer can get advantage of eachother or the law unless using unlawful practices, that's the point.
The law must regulate such practice before employers start chipping their workers. Now if such law is against ethics, moral, logic and reason, that's another story, but the citizens must comply if they consented to live in a territory in which such state have authority and jurisdiction.

Huh? They're not equal under the law. I cannot get any return on the VAT I paid as a regular citizen. A company can.

Now, not all employers are companies, but the few times people directly employ people are rare, so that point is moot.

[Utquiagvik]

Good job Indiana. It isnt right to force employees to have microchips under their skin.

[The Black Forrest]

Indeed. As many don’t give much credence to “they are just animals” either.

So do you have a cell phone, wearables, a computer, or a “newer” car?

I'm not going to let myself get akchusally'd into a discussion about the finer points of human biology. Nor am I interested nin playing Socrates 101. If you have a point make it, instead of asking redundant questions.

That was a long way to say yes you have some if not all of those devices. Why rage about the non-existent issue of forced implantation? Also, a way to eliminate the redundant questions…answer them? Finally, they are practice uses…. Rage on…..

[The Black Forrest]

Good job Indiana. It isnt right to force employees to have microchips under their skin.

Ok? Where are they getting forced?

[The Black Forrest]

:mad:

You are working way to hard at this


https://www.france24.com/en/video/20211 ... ip-implant

Alright fair (damn swedes *shakes fist*). I remain unconvinced this will be particularly widespread, nor in any danger of being a job requirement in the foreseeable future. Certainly not enough to make specific laws for it, given many existing laws could convievable cover such cases.

There's certainly something of a disconnect between a bunch of people in sweden and a US state. Either someone there read this exact article, or this was a preemptive attempt to prevent the mark of the beast

*shrugs* Solutions in search of problems. I would rather they work on existing problems then a futuristic might happen problems.

[Ethel mermania]

Alright fair (damn swedes *shakes fist*). I remain unconvinced this will be particularly widespread, nor in any danger of being a job requirement in the foreseeable future. Certainly not enough to make specific laws for it, given many existing laws could convievable cover such cases.

There's certainly something of a disconnect between a bunch of people in sweden and a US state. Either someone there read this exact article, or this was a preemptive attempt to prevent the mark of the beast

*shrugs* Solutions in search of problems. I would rather they work on existing problems then a futuristic might happen problems.

And I think the time is about right, the concept is being rolled out, though now for state use moreso than private.

And if you are going to make me wear a chip based vaccine passport as proposed in Sweden, I am going to damm well insist on that chip also proving voting rights. I would rather just say no to the whole thing just at the start.

[The Black Forrest]

*shrugs* Solutions in search of problems. I would rather they work on existing problems then a futuristic might happen problems.

And I think the time is about right, the concept is being rolled out, though now for state use moreso than private.

And if you are going to make me wear a chip based vaccine passport as proposed in Sweden, I am going to damm well insist on that chip also proving voting rights. I would rather just say no to the whole thing just at the start.

Granted I haven’t been following…..Did the Swedish chip withstand security attacks? Remember California and verachip? That was quickly cracked.

[Chessmistress]

I'm suggesting that printed and app-based alternatives are readily available just only as long is a government thing mean to fight a pandemic, but those alternatives are likely to disappear or to be made hard to get in another context - i.e. an employer requiring something from the employees.

Microchips may be convenient but there's no way it would be the one and only option. Again, as I pointed out, GDPR already does provide some limitation to an employers "freedom" to mandate microchips.

You've yet to bring forward anything convincing to make me agree with your notion that microchip mandates are looming on the horizon. What you're saying just sounds like Alex Jones-esque paranoia.

I didn't know I had to convince you, since:

You admitted that the GDPR is very vague about such matter and also about similar issues.

In USA 11 states already banned the practice because they think it's gonna be a real problem: are all those politicians (both Republicans and Democrats) affected by "Alex Jones-esque paranoia"?

[Chessmistress]

Good job Indiana. It isnt right to force employees to have microchips under their skin.

Ok? Where are they getting forced?

Everywhere.
Not to have a microchip under the skin but to have other wearable tracking devices.
The jump from forcing wearable tracking devices to forcing microchips under the skin is extremely small, especially since this technology is already widespread (and mandatory here and there) with dogs and already used by volunteers in some places (see: Sweden).

What's amazing is that usually people blames politicians for being too slow in dealing with social changes, while here we have some people blaming politicians for being too quick in dealing with social changes.
I think that it would be more honest to admit that they aren't totally hostile towards mandatory microchips under the skin, rather than blaming "too quick" politicians.

[Ethel mermania]

And I think the time is about right, the concept is being rolled out, though now for state use moreso than private.

And if you are going to make me wear a chip based vaccine passport as proposed in Sweden, I am going to damm well insist on that chip also proving voting rights. I would rather just say no to the whole thing just at the start.

Granted I haven’t been following…..Did the Swedish chip withstand security attacks? Remember California and verachip? That was quickly cracked.

I am old, I believe that with enough time and resources anything can be cracked.

These are RFID chips, there are enough readers out there, its just a question of can you get into the database.

[Kerwa]

What's amazing is that usually people blames politicians for being too slow in dealing with social changes, while here we have some people blaming politicians for being too quick in dealing with social changes.

Because Indiana is heavily Republican. If it had been heavily Democrat, then opinions would have been the opposite. Rangers v. Celtic basically. Had Trump won there would have been the same switch with vaccines.

Most people - who aren’t expressing an opinion - probably think that this is good legislation and approve of the pre-empt, however.

[Utquiagvik]

Good job Indiana. It isnt right to force employees to have microchips under their skin.

Ok? Where are they getting forced?

I wasn't specifically saying any states were forcing anyone to have microchips under their skin. I was just commending Indiana for saying that they were not going to force employees to have microchips under their skin.

[Esternial]

Microchips may be convenient but there's no way it would be the one and only option. Again, as I pointed out, GDPR already does provide some limitation to an employers "freedom" to mandate microchips.

You've yet to bring forward anything convincing to make me agree with your notion that microchip mandates are looming on the horizon. What you're saying just sounds like Alex Jones-esque paranoia.

I didn't know I had to convince you, since:

You admitted that the GDPR is very vague about such matter and also about similar issues.

Yes, vague. Not nonexistent. It can be applied. The difference here is that - again - I do not agree your notion that microchip mandates are looming on the horizon. I do not see it as a possibility given existing legislation in Europe.

All that said, why have one safeguard when you can have more?

In USA 11 states already banned the practice because they think it's gonna be a real problem: are all those politicians (both Republicans and Democrats) affected by "Alex Jones-esque paranoia"?

No, due to the simple fact that US =/= EU and there is no equivalent to GDPR there.

[Risottia]

I wonder, was it actually necessary? I mean, forcing people to alter their bodies as a requirement for a job looks, dunno, grossly illegal to me.

It actually isn't. You're allowed to mandate your employees take vaccines and iirc even that they go on birth control, both of which are technically bodily modifcations.

Neither isn't (vaccines aren't permanent and neither is birth control), and even that is quite illegal - except for some very specific jobs which require anyway a provision in the contract, or at least this is what happens in the EU. I would have guessed the same would happen in the US.

I think that focussing specifically on implanted monitoring technology is a mistake. Wearable devices can turn a workplace into something like a panopticon just as much as implanted devices.

Yep.
Also, so do personal devices linked to the company network.

[Chessmistress]

I didn't know I had to convince you, since:

You admitted that the GDPR is very vague about such matter and also about similar issues.

Yes, vague. Not nonexistent. It can be applied. The difference here is that - again - I do not agree your notion that microchip mandates are looming on the horizon. I do not see it as a possibility given existing legislation in Europe.

All that said, why have one safeguard when you can have more?

In USA 11 states already banned the practice because they think it's gonna be a real problem: are all those politicians (both Republicans and Democrats) affected by "Alex Jones-esque paranoia"?

No, due to the simple fact that US =/= EU and there is no equivalent to GDPR there.

Indeed: given the GDPR is very vague, now those 11 US states have more protection than Europe.