Subject:
|
Re: Cyber Kids 2002
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Sep 2002 15:40:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
381 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/03/uk.implant/index.html
> >
> > So what do you think? I see the utility of such a move, though on some
> > level I'm a little uncomfortable with it (but I don't know if I'm being
> > rational or simply reactive).
>
> There are two issues that I see, that can be phrased as two questions:
>
> Under what circumstances does a parent/guardian have the right to subject
> their children to surgery (even if minor outpatient)?
Yeah, that's one of the central points for me. I'm trying to find an
analogy, like the removal of an ugly but non-harmful wart, or perhaps the
erasure of an unsightly (and potentially stigmatizing) birthmark, but
neither of these is quite precise. It seems to me that, aside from the
invasiveness of the surgery, the implantation might be justified on purely
protective grounds, just like the current voluntary programs of
fingerprinting one's kids as a protective measure, but there seems to be
greater possibility of abuse with an actual implanted device.
> Is it a good idea to participate in a practice that could theoretically be
> used by governments or other agencies to track your children?
Another good point. For myself, I have the cynical impression that the
gov't can already track citizens almost effortlessly[1], so it's almost
moot. But at the same time there doesn't seem to be any reason to make it
easier for them, either.
> > Apparently certain stores are requiring fingerprint identification before
> > checks will be honored or credit accounts opened, and Mike doesn't like it.
> > Mike feels the fingerprint policy to be an abominable invasion
> > of privacy [1]. But is it? Or is it a reasonable guarantor of identity to
> > be used by a retail company to ensure security for its customers? I guess
> > that if it's mandatory, then Mike might have a fair point; the forcible
> > disclosure of identity is indeed an invasion of privacy. But if it's
> > volutary, would that be okay?
>
> It sounds like a brilliant plan to me! And you can always choose to not pay by
> check or to shop elsewhere. What's the harm? After all, if you're paying by
> check, aren't you disclosing your identity anyway? The fingerprint is supposed
> to just assure that you're doing so unfraudulently.
That's my impression as well. For my current job I had to be
fingerprinted for SEC certification. If I'd had any objection, I could
simply have found another job.
Mike's beef seems to be with his perception of an unreasonable motive for
identity disclosure. If the policy were voluntary, I suspect that Mike
would be more tolerant of it, though he'd likely criticize anyone who
voluntarily participated in the program. At the same time, if Mike's checks
were stolen and presented fraudulently, I'm sure he'd be happy to go after
the store for not protecting him more thoroughly, though I can't actually
speak for him...
Dave!
[1] But not suspected terrorists who enter the US and enroll in flight school
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Cyber Kids 2002
|
| (...) There are two issues that I see, that can be phrased as two questions: Under what circumstances does a parent/guardian have the right to subject their children to surgery (even if minor outpatient)? Is it a good idea to participate in a (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
