3 ms·

you're right, i've edited that claim out. larger systems utilizing RFID can enable tracking; however, the implant itself isn't inherently privacy-averse.

• tinus_hn 8y ago
  It’s just as privacy averse as tattooing a barcode on your face. Both allow you to be tracked wherever you go. The only difference is that a tattoo is visible to the naked eye.
  • woodrowbarlow 8y ago
    ... which is just as privacy-averse as having facial features which are visually distinguishable from other peoples' facial features, right? i apologize for the sarcastic example, but the point i was originally trying to make is just that media doesn't understand implantable RFID and constantly implies that if you get a chip you'll end up in a government database with constantly refreshing latitude and longitude.
    • tinus_hn 8y ago
      Facial features cannot be distinguished as exactly and easily as a barcode or RFID tag but they are indeed hard to hide. But if everyone gets an RFID tag you can be sure their locations end up in a big database the government can track, either because companies roll over each other in their efforts of covering the world with readers or the government placing them itself. Just like the database that records the tower your cell phone is connected to, all the time and basically forever. And you can be sure governments aren’t keeping their hands off that kind of data, they’ll find a reason why they need it.