Putting GPS Chips in Children & Teens

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.

**Bakerofish**

...really? this is even an idea worth considering?

c'mon! when i was a kid if i was inclined to make trouble or get into trouble, chip or no chip it was happening.

do you really want your child to have this line of thinking?:

"okay so im grounded and my mom wont let me go to that concert/party/gangbang and ive got a chip in me. Where the hell is that powerdrill?"

but seriously folks you can only prevent so much. If you try to prevent anything from happening to your kids then nothing will happen to your kids. think about it.

**Bakerofish**

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Just because you want to overprotect your kids doesn't mean it's intelligent. For the sake of argument, a meteor is going to hit your kid who is standing in the middle of a park. You are far enough away that it might not kill you, especially if you started running away. You can rush towards your kid even though you know you won't be able to push them out of the way in time and you'll only kill yourself in the process. If any portion of you thinks this is the best idea, you objectively either aren't being rational or are self-destructive.

umm Cannerus when youre a parent theres this HUGE instinct to throw logic away from the equation. so yes, if im a parent id fully expect myself to TRY to get my kid away from that firey ball of death.

this is not a life or death situation we're talking about here though. its about taking away someons right to privacy to "protect" them

**Bakerofish**

Frazzled wrote: Its an interesting concept for the purposes of rescuing kidnapped children.

this is the only good i see out of it. but when do you remove it? 18? thats where it becomes tricky.

the scary part about the tracking is that it might force any kidnappers to act "quicker"...

**Bakerofish**

Mr. Burning wrote:GPS chips would not prevent anything.

a GPS chip would not stop a kid missing the bus or even rocking up to P. A. Dophile and getting in his car to see mummy in hospital.

No, I would not want my tax money spent on something so useless for my bairns.

+1 here. If you're already working on recovery then you already messed up somewhere.

**Bakerofish**

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Bakerofish wrote:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Just because you want to overprotect your kids doesn't mean it's intelligent. For the sake of argument, a meteor is going to hit your kid who is standing in the middle of a park. You are far enough away that it might not kill you, especially if you started running away. You can rush towards your kid even though you know you won't be able to push them out of the way in time and you'll only kill yourself in the process. If any portion of you thinks this is the best idea, you objectively either aren't being rational or are self-destructive.

umm Cannerus when youre a parent theres this HUGE instinct to throw logic away from the equation. so yes, if im a parent id fully expect myself to TRY to get my kid away from that firey ball of death.

this is not a life or death situation we're talking about here though. its about taking away someons right to privacy to "protect" them

Hence "you objectively either aren't being rational or are self-destructive." I think many parents would, but I don't think that makes it the smartest move just because they would. Cognitive dissonance is also a natural instinct for humans but it's not always healthy. I wasn't drawing a parallel, merely making the argument that a parents urge to protect causes stupidity at times. For a lesser example, I wanted blond streaks in my hair growing up. My parents were opposed as I might be looked at "differently." I turned 18 and got blond streaks. They both commented how great they looked. What was the point in that again?

so you think there wasnt any logic behind them not wanting you to have blonde streaks? like what age did you want em? 11? 8? do you think you wouldve been able to defend yourself if some guys in your school decided to give you a haircut? I know its temporary but theyre just screening you from some potential grief you didnt consider

for one i wanted to and couldve gotten a tattoo when i was 16...mom said no. glad she did. I wanted a skull with worms on my shoulder. i wouldnt mind having it now but my tastes have changed since then

**Bakerofish**

Frazzled wrote:

Well thats a blindingly incorrect statement. Kids gets kidnapped from their front lawn. Teenagers have been kidnapped from their front lawn, their cars, even the playground at school.

a chip prevents this from happening how?

or maybe youre talking about recovery and not prevention?

**Bakerofish**

Frazzled wrote:
You're assuming one has to do one or the other. This is false and nonsensical. We try to prevent as much as possible, but we always have the police to go after an event has occurred. I'm talking rescue. If little bobbie gets snatched the police have the capacity to kick on the old tracker within a few minutes BG is going to get tracked.

the mere fact that bobbie gets kidnapped in the first place means that something already went wrong and wont stop whoever did it to do what they want to do in the first place.

not all crimes take time

sometimes its just five minutes or less

how often do you check the tracker?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:This all very interesting, but what is the mortality rate from brain surgery in infants?

it doesnt go in the brain

chips go in the arm or behind the knee(?) its like getting a shot.

**Bakerofish**

filbert wrote:
Bakerofish wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:This all very interesting, but what is the mortality rate from brain surgery in infants?

it doesnt go in the brain

chips go in the arm or behind the knee(?) its like getting a shot.

The OP mentioned it was to be inserted into the brain, for reasons not made clear. In fact, a GPS chip inserted into the brain probably wouldn't work.

ah my bad then. but thatd be stupid alright

these chips exist already and theyre like rice grain that go under the skin. like what dogs have now

**Bakerofish**

Frazzled wrote:So, we don't need that whole police force and justice system thing, just prevention. Got it.

and the chewbacca defense begins

try again sir.

**Bakerofish**

daedalus wrote:
Well, that's just stupid. I have a hacksaw that says that these are no problem.

As far as "in the brain" goes, between infant mortality, the effect of that kind of RF emmission IN THE BRAIN (FFS) at such a young developmental state, I'm not even going to beat my standard issue "OMG privacy concern" drum.

yeah the hacksaw solution is one the reasons this isnt any more popular

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2002/10/55999

but folks have talked about implanting it behind the jaw as well. but then theres how the signal affects the brain over time.

**Bakerofish**

Frazzled wrote:
Didn't asnwer the question though. Everything you state is talking about prevention. Kidnapping of children and teenagers occurs. you can harp all you want about 'prevention' but a method where a kidnapped minor could be instantly tracked is could indeed quickly resolve that kdinapping.

yeah i agree

could

or just force folks to act quicker. and again, how often does one check the tracker?

like i said it doesnt always have to take much time.

and you yourself talked about how easy it is to circumvent.

dont put words in my mouth to make your argument prettier

this is not a contest.

**Bakerofish**

Frazzled wrote:everything's a contest Jr. Its a zero sum game world and if you win 15 intranetz you get a free cookie.

thats an expensive cookie

**Bakerofish**

heres a little randomizer to the argument

which would you rather put a chip on:

a convicted felon or a kid?

both methods are about as effective at preventing and solving crimes (not a lot) but the convict route is cheaper.