‘Barcode everyone at birth’

[weakmagneto]

If I were empress of the Universe I would insist on every individual having a unique ID permanently attached - a barcode if you will; an implanted chip to provide an easy, fast inexpensive way to identify individuals.

It would be imprinted on everyone at birth. Point the scanner at someone and there it is.

Having such a unique barcode would have many advantages. In war soldiers could easily differentiate legitimate targets in a population from non combatants.

This could prevent mistakes in identity, mistakes that result in the deaths of innocent bystanders. Weapons systems would record the code of the use, identifying how fired which shot and leading to more accountability in the field.

Anonymity would be impossible as would mistaken identity making it easier to place responsibility accurately, not only in war but also in non-combat situations far from the war.” - Elizabeth Moon in BBC News' The Forum

Science fiction writer Elizabeth Moon argues that everyone should be given a barcode at birth. What are your thoughts about this subject? Should everyone be given a barcode or an implanted chip at birth?

[newyear]

Isn't one's DNA like a barcode? What E Moon wants seems to be something else. Not a barcode but an identity chip.

Probably as races inter mix and the population grows, some time in the future a 'bright' politician will think it a sensible thing to do. The idea will be sold to the public as a means to control national expenditure (identifying one's nationals from others). Science fiction does have a canny way of predicting the future.

Just wait until the implanted chip starts to send impulses to the brain to either 'pacify' or put the subject in a 'kill mode' ..... Or, programmed death. Programmed sex. Programmed obedience.

Hmmmm, just think of the advantages of a chip. I would be surprised if experiments weren't being carried out at the moment.

[weakmagneto]

Hi Newyear! Great point about the chip, think I will edit the question to include the chip in there. There are chip implants already available for pets and chips are being implanted in human volunteers.

[CanadysPeak]

If I were empress of the Universe I would insist on every individual having a unique ID permanently attached - a barcode if you will; an implanted chip to provide an easy, fast inexpensive way to identify individuals.

It would be imprinted on everyone at birth. Point the scanner at someone and there it is.

Having such a unique barcode would have many advantages. In war soldiers could easily differentiate legitimate targets in a population from non combatants.

This could prevent mistakes in identity, mistakes that result in the deaths of innocent bystanders. Weapons systems would record the code of the use, identifying how fired which shot and leading to more accountability in the field.

Anonymity would be impossible as would mistaken identity making it easier to place responsibility accurately, not only in war but also in non-combat situations far from the war.” - Elizabeth Moon in BBC News' The Forum

Science fiction writer Elizabeth Moon argues that everyone should be given a barcode at birth. What are your thoughts about this subject? Should everyone be given a barcode or an implanted chip at birth?

I think that embedded microchips are desirable for things like medical record storage, but for basic identity? I'll bet that this would get hacked within 24 hours? If a barcode, where would we put it? On the forehead?

[Watson]

Just like any other control, or monitoring devices, they will work for most of us, but there will be those that will go underground to have them removed, altered, or replaced with fake information. And how would you know if you are being mis-identified. Someone could slip you a chip in your pocket, or your sandwich, then you get shot for being a bad guy, and the real bad guy is free and clear.

I don't think relying on something so easily misused is a good thing.

[Natural ChemE]

weakmagneto,

It's of no surprise to me that the quote that you provided began with "If I were empress of the Universe" as someone who would be in favor of such an idea would really have to have little concern for others' right to consent.

This said, I'm hardly against the idea of identifying chips. It's just that an individual's consent is always important. You know, like sex; it can be great until you try to force it on someone. Take away that consent, and it becomes something sick and dehumanizing.

Now if folks do consent to such chips, as I imagine that many will, then this system can have some pretty serious advantages. Technology's already pretty much at the point where you could have such a chip and just have your house, door, personal computer, etc. unlock for you. Where you could just have a cash register detect and debit your account. Where you could enter into legal contracts more readily as your identity could be well validated. Sure, fraud concerns would exist, but without getting too technical, I'd go ahead and point out that these can be addressed technologically.

The owner of a chip, if they have come to such a position by choice, would likely have a chip that would control what is revealed. They could, for instance, have the chip reveal their identity on death if they set the option. Hell, they could even have their will attached to it if they so desire. They could have the chip reveal only accounts that they want visible to particular parties, and they could maintain whatever level of autonomy that they wish.

If it's forced on them by law, well, that's a darker thing. Chip makers would be marketing their product to the government as opposed to individuals, and folks would have to live with whatever new features creep into the standard chip set over time. While most folks who work in government are genuinely good people, they'll often enough imagine that a new feature could be useful as to work it in.

Disclaimer: I'm testing something. Please don't take this particular post too seriously.

[Watson]

Most of these uses could be handle by an iPhone and need not be implanted. I think the point of the OP is ID, implanted and no concent. Point being you can be identified despite your wish not to be. I don't think it is good for the person as it is simply for monitoring and control.