Forcing employees to have microchips under the skin.

[Keemstar]

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?

Maybe its a good thing they ban mandated implanted devices that 1984 stuff. I refuse to get into something like the metaverse knowing how much information big-tech collects. Also, they have terrible security as well have you seen how many data breaches like Facebook, amazon, google have its scary stuff

[Chessmistress]

Really?
I have a phone with Android-derived OS (100% compatible with all Android apps), with plenty apps installed, and all those apps work fine.
My phone have the GPS off.

Well smart phones are not that simple. Even if you turn it off gps can still work. Some things to consider:

Do you disable Wi-Fi and Bluetooth when not needed?
Do you check the privacy settings of apps? In particular those apps which use location services…restaurants, maps, fitness apps, apps which help find the phone.
Do you limit ad tracking?
Do you disable location data usage for browsers?

Basically; there are many ways to track and you can limit the tracking. The only real way to not be tracked is to ditch the phone.

Yes: GPS, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are always turn off when not in use. It's even good for the battery, not just only for the privacy. Also body activity is always off.

What is the point to check the authorizations of the apps if GPS, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth (and even body activity) are all off?

What is ad tracking?

I do not use browsers in the phone: I do not surf the net on screens under 32 inch, my standard is 55 inch screen.
I use the phone for calls, messaging (including WhatsApp), take photos, record videos, paying with electronic meal vouchers, amazon app, aliexpress app + various tool apps (i.e. measuring the level of ambient light) + very rarely offline gaming.

[The Blaatschapen]

Time to tell my fellow brethren to go on strike to get their chips removed.

[The Blaatschapen]

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.

Or your phone with location monitoring on.

I can leave my phone at my desk.

I can't do that with my chip.

Heck, I can even turn off my phone.

[Jinggangshan]

Of course it's a company. Old porky is at it again... remember the reason we have laws against child labour and for workplace safety equipment: they would, if we let them.

[Chessmistress]

Or your phone with location monitoring on.

I can leave my phone at my desk.

I can't do that with my chip.

Heck, I can even turn off my phone.

Exactly, and it applies even with a wearable device like a bracelet.

[Ethel mermania]

Or your phone with location monitoring on.

I can leave my phone at my desk.

I can't do that with my chip.

Heck, I can even turn off my phone.

If you don't want to be tracked you have to turn off the phone, as soon as you turn it on, your location is known. Folks here are missing that very basic fact.

[The Black Forrest]

I can leave my phone at my desk.

I can't do that with my chip.

Heck, I can even turn off my phone.

If you don't want to be tracked you have to turn off the phone, as soon as you turn it on, your location is known. Folks here are missing that very basic fact.

Many don’t understand apps, etc., also cache info which gets uploaded……

You don’t want to get tracked? No computing, no charge plates or atm cards, and no modern car……

[Deacarsia]

This is insane. I am glad that such a law now exists, but I am upset that it apparently is necessary.

[The Black Forrest]

Well smart phones are not that simple. Even if you turn it off gps can still work. Some things to consider:

Do you disable Wi-Fi and Bluetooth when not needed?
Do you check the privacy settings of apps? In particular those apps which use location services…restaurants, maps, fitness apps, apps which help find the phone.
Do you limit ad tracking?
Do you disable location data usage for browsers?

Basically; there are many ways to track and you can limit the tracking. The only real way to not be tracked is to ditch the phone.

Yes: GPS, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are always turn off when not in use. It's even good for the battery, not just only for the privacy. Also body activity is always off.

What is the point to check the authorizations of the apps if GPS, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth (and even body activity) are all off?

Your apps especially the online ones still check in through the cell network. Which by the way you can also be tracked when the phone is on.

What is ad tracking?

Cookies and assorted things which makes your apps “free!”

I do not use browsers in the phone: I do not surf the net on screens under 32 inch, my standard is 55 inch screen.
I use the phone for calls, messaging (including WhatsApp), take photos, record videos, paying with electronic meal vouchers, amazon app, aliexpress app + various tool apps (i.e. measuring the level of ambient light) + very rarely offline gaming.

WhatsApp tracks you. It will go through the cell towers. If I remember right; there is a request info where you can see what they check. It also doesn’t keep backups so if it comes back empty; doesn’t mean it’s not doing anything.

Keep in mind. Anytime your phone is on; there are various activities which allow you to be tracked. There is caching that happens which updates as well. May not be perfect by it does allow for triangulation….

[The Black Forrest]

This is insane. I am glad that such a law now exists, but I am upset that it apparently is necessary.

Necessary is questionable. Can you name any company which expected sub-dermal devices? Basically; laws in search of problems.

[Chessmistress]

This is insane. I am glad that such a law now exists, but I am upset that it apparently is necessary.

Your weakness in this specific case is that you are surprised that it's necessary: those who make the pre-emptive strike against the practice are well aware that such kind of laws are often necessary.

[Chessmistress]

This is insane. I am glad that such a law now exists, but I am upset that it apparently is necessary.

Necessary is questionable. Can you name any company which expected sub-dermal devices? Basically; laws in search of problems.

Basically your point is that they should have wait for this to become a widespread practice, then fighting against lobbying by the companies.
At such point the next question would have been:
"Can you name any company where the sub-dermal devices, an already standard thing, are used to oppress the employees?"

I'm from Europe and in Europe sometime we have troubles in telling the difference between a Democrat and a Republican, because often they both seems right wingers, even more on the right than our "standard" right parties.

[Alvecia]

Necessary is questionable. Can you name any company which expected sub-dermal devices? Basically; laws in search of problems.

Basically your point is that they should have wait for this to become a widespread practice, then fighting against lobbying by the companies.
At such point the next question would have been:
"Can you name any company where the sub-dermal devices, an already standard thing, are used to oppress the employees?"

I'm from Europe and in Europe sometime we have troubles in telling the difference between a Democrat and a Republican, because often they both seems right wingers, even more on the right than our "standard" right parties.

I'm all for pre-emptive lawmaking, but this does seem a little premature. There is a middle ground between "widespread" and "non-existent".

[The Black Forrest]

Necessary is questionable. Can you name any company which expected sub-dermal devices? Basically; laws in search of problems.

Basically your point is that they should have wait for this to become a widespread practice, then fighting against lobbying by the companies.
At such point the next question would have been:
"Can you name any company where the sub-dermal devices, an already standard thing, are used to oppress the employees?"

I'm from Europe and in Europe sometime we have troubles in telling the difference between a Democrat and a Republican, because often they both seems right wingers, even more on the right than our "standard" right parties.

I would like my politicians working on actual problems then futuristic might happen problems.

You listed California. That wasn’t simply a case of “this could happen”. They were seriously arguing for all people to have it as for example the device at the time would have a persons medical records and it could aid doctors when the person could not communicate. People quickly tested and broke the security. Other issues were found. Thus the law. It’s wan’t because of simple tracking. It was mainly because of practicality and keeping information secure. Tech of the time simply couldn’t do the job right.

Even then; you fear being tracked or traceable and you already being tracked.

[Ethel mermania]

Basically your point is that they should have wait for this to become a widespread practice, then fighting against lobbying by the companies.
At such point the next question would have been:
"Can you name any company where the sub-dermal devices, an already standard thing, are used to oppress the employees?"

I'm from Europe and in Europe sometime we have troubles in telling the difference between a Democrat and a Republican, because often they both seems right wingers, even more on the right than our "standard" right parties.

I'm all for pre-emptive lawmaking, but this does seem a little premature. There is a middle ground between "widespread" and "non-existent".

Honestly, I think is about the right time. Microchip covid passports are a thing

https://www.nny360.com/news/publicservi ... a8932.html

[Alvecia]

I'm all for pre-emptive lawmaking, but this does seem a little premature. There is a middle ground between "widespread" and "non-existent".

Honestly, I think is about the right time. Microchip covid passports are a thing

https://www.nny360.com/news/publicservi ... a8932.html

I dunno. I see shit like that and I'm reminded of that saying where the next big tech/science breakthrough is always "only 5 years away".

It's a thing in the same sense that fusion power is a "thing". Technically possible, done in a lab, but nowhere near being practically useful.

[Ethel mermania]

Honestly, I think is about the right time. Microchip covid passports are a thing

https://www.nny360.com/news/publicservi ... a8932.html

I dunno. I see shit like that and I'm reminded of that saying where the next big tech/science breakthrough is always "only 5 years away".

It's a thing in the same sense that fusion power is a "thing". Technically possible, done in a lab, but nowhere near being practically useful.

We chip animals routinely today, This is not a new technology.

[Jerzylvania]

Interesting that they've seemingly done this pre-emptively. Typically law lags somewhat behind technology, no?
I wonder what prompted the interest.

It wasn't anything they've done for climate change. Nevertheless, I do support the measure.

[Kerwa]

I dunno. I see shit like that and I'm reminded of that saying where the next big tech/science breakthrough is always "only 5 years away".

It's a thing in the same sense that fusion power is a "thing". Technically possible, done in a lab, but nowhere near being practically useful.

We chip animals routinely today, This is not a new technology.

My dog is chipped.

[Jinggangshan]

This is insane. I am glad that such a law now exists, but I am upset that it apparently is necessary.

Your weakness in this specific case is that you are surprised that it's necessary: those who make the pre-emptive strike against the practice are well aware that such kind of laws are often necessary.

It's neccessary for the same reason child-labour and the good old 12-hour-day are outlawed: They would, if we let them.

[Alvecia]

I dunno. I see shit like that and I'm reminded of that saying where the next big tech/science breakthrough is always "only 5 years away".

It's a thing in the same sense that fusion power is a "thing". Technically possible, done in a lab, but nowhere near being practically useful.

We chip animals routinely today, This is not a new technology.

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.

[The Black Forrest]

We chip animals routinely today, This is not a new technology.

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.

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

[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.

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

[Ethel mermania]

We chip animals routinely today, This is not a new technology.

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?