Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
samusaran253 wrote:bs. There has always been premarital sex, teen drug use, these aren't new things, they've been happening since before the Roman Empire.
So how do you explain the higher rate of teen pregnancy today than before?
You're not going to prevent these things, but you can lessen their impact. Just because something isn't 100% successful doesn't mean it's ineffective.
It's not. It's actually getting lower per capita. America does have the highest teen pregnancy rates, but it has more to do with abysmal education than anything else. Implanting chips to moniter what your kids are doing isn't going to help the situation. You have to educate them on safe sex and give them access to the tools for it. If you don't, you're an irresponsible parent.
biccat wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Second, what's special about abortion?
The fact that it's a medical procedure that doesn't require parental consent. Every major surgery does, but abortion escapes this logic. I'm not exactly sure why.
To preserve the freedom of sexual expression for the individual involved, to preserve confidentiality, and to ensure that the needs of the individual recieving the operation are put before the principles of the parents (which may conflict with the choice of the individual).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/03/16 22:36:03
samusaran253 wrote:I was on another forum, the official Star Wars: The Old Republic forum of all places, where someone made a thread make a ridiculous claim that at birth all people should be forced to have a GPS tracking chip inserted into their brain. His argument was that it would help stop abductions and kidnappings. He also said it would help stop teen sex, drug & alcohol abuse, breaking curfew, and other acts of civil disobedience. The entire community, save for Geshalt (another user) and the OP, then told him how horrible of an idea it was. People cited references to totalitarian government, human rights violations, how such a thing could be abused by the government/abusive parents/pedophiles who figure out how to track kids and teenagers.
People also said how it's like treating human beings like cattle. Some users said that it should be allowed up until they turn 13 and then it should be removed, and other users said that if you need a GPS locator to keep your children safe, then you shouldn't have kids. Personally I'm against such a thing, it's a very slippery slope after all, and I while I'm not a minor, I probably would have killed myself as a teenager if my parents and/or the government could figure out my exact location at any given time. I sarcastically told the OP that he might as well have thought police while he was at it. So, what do you think of this?
This is how I feel about the whole thing:
Spoiler:
And if my parents had something like this put into me, I would cut open my arm/whatever and dig it out, then crush it with a hammer.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/03/16 23:48:01
May the the blessings of His Grace the Emperor tumble down upon you like a golden fog. (Only a VERY select few will get this reference. And it's not from 40k. )
samusaran253 wrote:Right now I'm kind of pissed off, I spent all day doing school work, watching 28 Days Later, and posting on forums. I didn't even get to fap. DAMNIT!
See, now I will never take anything you say on this forum seriously.
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
GalacticDefender wrote:
And if my parents had something like this put into me, I would cut open my arm/whatever and dig it out, then crush it with a hammer.
This alone makes it a bad idea. How many teenagers are going to go through this and scar or seriously injure themselves trying to claw these chips out?
A more reasonable proposal would be removing the chip at the age of criminal responsibility (14 here). Few children younger than that are going to have such qualms/awareness of the chips, and at that young age chips will help a lot.
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
It would have helped if my brother had had a GPS chip in him when he stole my car and ran away.
I had a library book in there man 0.o
Emperors Faithful wrote:
GalacticDefender wrote:
And if my parents had something like this put into me, I would cut open my arm/whatever and dig it out, then crush it with a hammer.
This alone makes it a bad idea. How many teenagers are going to go through this and scar or seriously injure themselves trying to claw these chips out?
A more reasonable proposal would be removing the chip at the age of criminal responsibility (14 here). Few children younger than that are going to have such qualms/awareness of the chips, and at that young age chips will help a lot.
Just put it in a place that no teenager would cut into.
Or better yet don't tell them where its implanted, if they are young enough they won't remember.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/03/17 02:58:39
Emperors Faithful wrote:This alone makes it a bad idea. How many teenagers are going to go through this and scar or seriously injure themselves trying to claw these chips out?
I'd imagine that if teenagers were half as concerned as they think that they are about privacy and not being tracked they wouldn't carry cell phones.
They're already being tracked. I'm more concerned about the little 'uns.
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
The only difficulty from a chip is that its easily removed. Grant you most bad guys are dumber than a box of rocks, but many aren't and cwould remove it from a kidnapped child.
The teenagers on the thread get antsy about being tracked are misperceiving though. Its an interesting concept for the purposes of rescuing kidnapped children.
Not necessarily. Imagine how much damage this could do in the hands of an abusive parent as opposed to kind, loving one. They'd be even more scared to run away because they could be so easily tracked down.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
This idea is technically flawed as well as ethically.
The chips in dogs are RSS. You need to get your scanner within a few metres to activate the chip and get a signal out of it.
This means you need to build scanners everywhere and connect them to some massive database so the signals can be authenticated. The IDs in the child database will have to be re-authenticated every six months because children change so quickly.
You have to arrange access for everyone who wants to snoop on childrens' movements. You have to authenticate all of the snoopers, which requires another database and an authentication layer.
Every time a new entry is made in these databases, it can go wrong by accident or by deliberate attack.
Chips break. They can be read remotely and the data cloned to a new chip. The existing chip can be spoofed, shielded or replaced.
I would imagine that such a chip could easily be disabled by electrical shocks, EMP, perhaps even strong magnets (I've ruined a phone before by leaving it on top of some speakers).
Personally I am against chipping people (unless it means we can get something cool like Logan's Run in real life).
Aside from the moral impications of such a technology, you have issues with hardware and software development rendering earlier implants either incompatible or outdated (including leaving them at increased risk of being corrupted/hacked/etc).
Not to mention device failure, etc.
You also have problems with encapsulation, rejection, etc of the physical device itself, as well as possible problems with the implantation process (in terms of the usual risks of surgery), cost of implantation, etc.
Then there are problems with data security, access restrictions, etc.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:KK raises a good point.
However there are those tracking devises zoologists stick on Humpback Whales, Impalas and sundry beasts of the wild.
They could be adapted for parents to remote control the kids. Especilly when they start behaving worse than sundry beasts of the wild.
They are large, external devices with limited power supply.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:KK raises a good point.
However there are those tracking devises zoologists stick on Humpback Whales, Impalas and sundry beasts of the wild.
They could be adapted for parents to remote control the kids. Especilly when they start behaving worse than sundry beasts of the wild.
Those are powered and they are significantly larger than a simple encapsulated chip you could inject into a baby. They are expensive too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/03/17 10:15:05
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Kilkrazy wrote:Those are powered and they are significantly larger than a simple encapsulated chip you could inject into a baby. They are expensive too.
Although some of the expense is taken up with the dataloggers, sensors etc that go along with the locator, as well as proofing it against the environments it will be operating in.
I think its a brilliant idea to put tracking devices in children, makes them easier to find and once found all you gotta do is cut the chip out and you got yourself a "plaything" forever...or until you get bored of it, while a chip lays beeping in a bin
SilverMK2 wrote:Although some of the expense is taken up with the dataloggers, sensors etc that go along with the locator, as well as proofing it against the environments it will be operating in.
Is there a more hostile environment for technology than at the hands of a toddler?
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
I dislike the idea of implanting a tracking chip as a means to control your child.
1) Putting a chip in the kid is potentially dangerous. If you put the chip somewhere like an extremity where it's less likely to cause issues with mental development it's a simple matter to remove the chip defeating it's purpose. Put it somewhere hard to get out and you now have an active RF source within centimeters of developing brain tissue. If you think cellphones are bad for kid's brains this is that turned up to 11. Heck, put it in an arm and just wait for some amateur surgeon try and take it out.
2) It won't make them safer. It was stated in here earlier, a GPS tracking device is purely reactive. Until you think something is wrong what good is it doing? If a guy snatches your kid up as they walk home from school how long before you notice? If you're a total spaz and check the locator constantly you might notice pretty quick, but is the kid just goofing with their friends or in the back of a van being violated? Avoiding teen pregnancy? The misses will kill me if she reads this but when we were dating both my parents and hers knew exactly where we were, we just weren't doing what they thought we were. So... useless.
3) Jammable. Nothing small enough to implant in your body is going to have the broadcasting horsepower to overcome someone actively jamming it. It would be a fairly simple task to put a jammer in a van and pick up a kid. Even if they had a chip in their brain you won't find it. Sure, if the kid's signal winks out there might be an alarm. But it would have to have a delay to avoid false positives. Police could look for a jammer but... just a Faraday cage in the back of my van could do it, no active broadcasting source.
4) The biggest danger to kids isn't strangers, it's their own family. Most kidnappings? Parents. Most sexual assaults? Relatives. If your GPS tracker shows your kid is with Uncle Buck they're safe right? No need to worry. The actual number of kids kidnapped or sexually assaulted by strangers is very low.
5) The ability to be abused. What, you mean there's a way to find out where kids are at any given time? No way that could ever end badly. Like fething amazon.com for pedophiles.
All a tracking chip would do is make a few over-protective spazzes feel their kids are safer without actually you know, making them safer. Meanwhile the person hocking them gets rich and some kid develops a brain tumor when they're 30, thanks Mom!
This is another case of people wanting technology to take the place of common sense and personal responsibility. Instead of taking the time to educate your kid about dangers, "Yeah, the guy in the white panel van offering free candy isn't legit," "If you screw, you can get pregnant, and more than likely will because you're both stupid teenagers and he has all the control over things as a kid witih polio does his legs." We just figure we'll jam a microchip in their heads when they're born and we'll be good to go. Sorry, parenting doesn't work that way.
mattyrm wrote: I will bro fist a toilet cleaner.
I will chainfist a pretentious English literature student who wears a beret.
Tyyr wrote:This is another case of people wanting technology to take the place of common sense and personal responsibility. Instead of taking the time to educate your kid about dangers, "Yeah, the guy in the white panel van offering free candy isn't legit," "If you screw, you can get pregnant, and more than likely will because you're both stupid teenagers and he has all the control over things as a kid witih polio does his legs." We just figure we'll jam a microchip in their heads when they're born and we'll be good to go. Sorry, parenting doesn't work that way.
samusaran253 wrote:bs. There has always been premarital sex, teen drug use, these aren't new things, they've been happening since before the Roman Empire.
So how do you explain the higher rate of teen pregnancy today than before?
You're not going to prevent these things, but you can lessen their impact. Just because something isn't 100% successful doesn't mean it's ineffective.
It's not. It's actually getting lower per capita. America does have the highest teen pregnancy rates, but it has more to do with abysmal education than anything else. Implanting chips to moniter what your kids are doing isn't going to help the situation. You have to educate them on safe sex and give them access to the tools for it. If you don't, you're an irresponsible parent.
What's that? biccat was factually incorrect about something? Perhaps we should subject him to the standard set by that other poster, biccat, for what to do when you made a claim that was factually incorrect...
"It starts with "I" and rhymes with "was wrong".
Give it a try."
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
)
