Should the government start implanting newborns with a tracker?

Like I said - these trackers merely track location, not actions at this location. If the government wants to assume because you are located inside of a bathroom you are pooping, then yes, they will be able to know when you poop.

Like i've asked before:

Instead of just claiming it is taking away your rights and liberties tell me how it will negatively effect you.

 

You're missing the point, that is how it negatively effects you.

Your rights are inherent, natural, and inalienable, there are YOUR rights and the government has no right to take them away. That, among the various other examples that have been mentioned, are how it would negatively effect people.

This is a horrific example of the power a government would have over its' people, you can do a lot with location data, don't ever do something that you don't want anyone else to know about (whether illegal or not). I could just see such a system being abused, specific segments of a population being tracked & contained within specific areas, etc.

 

Simply saying "because they can't take away our rights" is not a valid argument. What is now a right might not be in the future, for the better, even though we might not see it now. Society progresses. What we think is right now might not be the case 100 years from now.

You are correct in saying that location data can be used for a lot of things. My opinion is that the good outweighs the bad.

 

I think that the very knowledge that you are being tracked by the government generates a sense of unease with people. This is clearly a disadvantage to living everyday as whether you feel this unease is justified or not, I would think that quite a lot of people would feel this unease. Perhaps you might reason that in future, when people get used to the idea and they would therefore accept it and not feel such unease, and therefore that this point goes away. However the future might pan out though, regarding atleast the implementation of this idea, people will initially feel that unease.

General opportunity cost comes into play as well. Again, how that data could be used etc. The slippery slope also applies; but to not formulate it fallaciously, the further you encroach on ones individual liberties, the greater the next encroachment will be.

This idea also violates ownership of ones own body, a fundamental principal that most people hold. The only way for this policy to be effective I would say would be to outlaw the removal of such a tracker. It is absurd to say that people won't find out where the tracker is, and it would also be absurd to say that people would not be able to remove it. Practically, unless you want to hypothesise la la land, the above two points will be the reality.

Thus, denying people the right to do with their body what they wish contravenes ownership of body principles, which most people find repugnant. Furthermore criminals would simply just remove the tracker and proceed with their business. Clever criminals might attempt to disrupt the tracker, and when the government questions them just say it's a malfunction. What would happen in that situation? Also since drug laws are largely responsible for the prison population (As far as I know?), I highly doubt a tracker would solve that problem. You might in fact catch more people you didn't know about, making the problem even worse!

How would you also deal with illegal immigration (a problem in America), or people immigrating into the country in general. The procedure must be non-intrusive and complication free otherwise it would axiomatically be to their disadvantage. Might the tracker also cause health problems down the line?


Prima facie the idea sounds like it would reduce most major crime, however I am not convinced. It also does provide for real negative consequences outside of rights violations if you don't think they are worth much. I'm also not sure of the feasibility of the idea, specifically how you would take into account the fact that new borns grow, and how small the tracker would be, where it would be placed, when it would be placed etc as to not disrupt that growth.

 

Ehh, infringement on rights is a pretty valid argument. It's quite literally the basis for the U.S. Bill of Rights, to ensure the government doesn't infringe on the rights of the people (even though it has failed pretty hard).

Inalienable rights that are rights that are guaranteed, no matter what. Some horrific things will need to happen to societies to back-track to a point where you're no longer guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and property. Less inherent, but rights such as one's privacy is certainly different, but arguably just as important; hell, I would argue they are under the same umbrella of one's inalienable rights.

Basically, rights may change, but in a manner that more rights are added. Ex: Internet Access is now deemed a human right by the UN. If rights change in a manner that they are being taken away, then we're at a point where we have a authoritarian government and something - most likely - needs to change.

 

This would never happen, the Government don't own us.

The only reason their in place is to try to make society a co-habituating place of living, unfortunately it's clear they don't fulfill this in many countries.

The idea seems like an extreme plot to remove any sort of privacy or right of any human being. I sure as hell would never allow anyone to put a tracker in my baby. As the saying goes "over my dead body". Even though they're seems to be pro's as in if they were the victim. But the general idea of allowing the government to treat people like robot's or cattle. No. That would never receive a majority vote to be allowed.


What you have to realise is, this is the world we live in. And if there wasn't crime, we wouldn't have the police, army, and everything that relates, we wouldn't have a billion £$ investment in keeping safe, locks, car alarms, the rest of it. Jobs, if anything, it's something majority of us don't want, but to face facts what would this world be without it? Yes crimes would stop, no reason for jails, courts, laws, police, army? But where would that place us as Humans? And over-growing earth, and all source of food dying out real fast.

 

Although it happens, purposely allowing humans to die for the sake of relieving the population is silly when you can just enforce a law. China's 1-child-per-couple law reduced their population by 100-400 million since it started.

 

That policy has actually worked against them.
China now has an aging workforce and are looking for younger people to stimulate their economy, coupled with their failing realty sector & mainland stock market crash, are they really someone you want to take ques from?

On another note, I am personally against any legislation that aims to enforce personal(or societal) beliefs on other people's bodies.
It's their body, you have no claim over it, and just because they're born into your society, does not give you the right to tinker with it.

 

They're tracking you already via your phone, etc...
So yeah wouldn't change much other than make it "official".

 

It would certainly reduce crime, at least for the short term until people learn how to have the device removed, or tampered with, as already stated by Tmoe.

 

It is absolutely wrong. The government should NOT have the power to do this. It will only affect the innocent, the criminals will just take it out. If it's electronic, it's hackable. What if one of the devices were faulty, and killed the newborn? I can go on and on.

People need to have some logic, I don't want to call it common sense, because it is not common anymore. Thankfully I have read a few replies on this thread that made me not lose faith in the human species.

 

I agree with you on this.

 

I don't think it would drop crime at all, at first yes but people always find a way around it for some easy cash. The crimes would just shift, people would have to be murdered in large busy areas so when you killed someone you'd look like the rest of the crowd running away from the gun shots. Not to mention people would figure out a workaround a way to fry the chip or temporarly block the signal. People will always find a way, thats why you can't stop drugs.

 

In time, this will happen. Privacy issues will arise but we are already technically "tracked" with our internet activity.

 

They already do, but it's in your DNA

 

Not even worth discussing why I don't agree. Just a simple FUCK NO

 

100% agree with this. People are so keen to give up their liberty nowadays it's sickening. Especially at Nazi Checkpoints i mean Dwi/License checkpoints

 

Everyone repeating the image above has no idea how the world works and should move to Syria or Israel.

 

This is such an odd idea, but it's reasonable. I guess this will be able to reduce crime rates dramatically however imagine how much implanting a chip somewhere where someone wouldn't be able to dig it out would cost. Not to mention that there's so many protective mothers in this country today that would not even let their child get a vaccine. I think doing this would cause too much chaos.

 

''and those who worship the beast and his image, and all who receive the mark of his name, have no rest day and night. 12. Here is the patience of the saints; here are the ones who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus'' (Revelation 14:11-12)