3 ms·

Is this really any better? Do you think there is a qualitative difference between a 'vaccine' ID, which I can assure you will have information encoded that can

Is this really any better? Do you think there is a qualitative difference between a 'vaccine' ID, which I can assure you will have information encoded that can be used as a personal identity marker, and what the original commenter was proposing? Is it really any better that this is happening in the "developing world"? You even make the case that it's identical to the practices we uphold to track animals. Furthermore, appeal to authority is not proof or evidence of anything but the opinion of authority. Try to avoid doing that if you want to engage ideas in good faith.

smt88 6y ago
> Do you think there is a qualitative difference between a 'vaccine' ID, which I can assure you will have information encoded that can be used as a personal identity marker, and what the original commenter was proposing? Yes. You didn't read the article I posted, and you're already making assumptions to create a straw man. The proposed research[1] (that Gates has been falsely linked to) proposes using quantum dots in a pattern. They need not be PII. A random person in a developing country would have no method or incentive to forge the quantum dots in their skin, so the pattern would be exactly the same on every person. Nothing personally identifiable. 1. https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/11/523/eaay7162 https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/11/523/eaay7162
z199 6y ago
Wow. Even this balanced comment is downvoted. Satya has bought so many "open" source devs that these threads are an uphill battle.