RFID has been around for years. Will RFID technology be implemented into a global economic society? (no paper money)

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/32588/Microchip___RFID_Cities/

Privacy advocates freak out at this thought. I think its inevitable.

I agree. It is inevitable.

I was called a fatalist the other day because I said that. lol.

I just walked away, I find its hard to explain philosophical definitions to laymen in public places without sounding pretentious.

Boy I sure hear ya there.

It's not easy to do even in a philosophy forum!

We are the Borg.
You will be assimilated.
Resistance is Futile

It is inevitable......

I definitely see the problems with it as an individual and I don't see how it will necessarily cut down on Identity Theft. Unless we go to the chip implants, which I'm sure we will eventually. We will probably end up with the chips faster because of the ID theft problem.

I think both of you do a very good job of not sounding pretentious. Although I can imagine in real life, it would be harder.

There are lots of people in the regular forums who sound way more pretentious and they don't even know what they're talking about.

Well at least here I can link a page that explains it and its your choice to go and read.

I do not think that is pretentious, but if that was your gist . . .

I shall walk away.

This reminds me of a time I told someone they were a cynic, and rather than accept the obvious intention of my words they went ape-**** stupid on the 'true' meaning of the philosophical tradition of 'cynicism', assumed I had no knowledge of this or anything else, and refused to move the conversation forward as they continued ranting on the lack of education of 'the true meanings of certain terms' in everyday conversation.

Please know that I'm not comparing you to these people, not by a long shot! But it also reminds me of this wingnut that would rant endlessly as part of a personal crusade against the use of the word "organic" to describe vegetables grown without pesticide, etc.

To chemists, "organic" has a specific defintion which I forget, but it applies to a lot of carbon based molecules, like methane, ethane, propane, etc; wood, plastics, oil, etc. So all vegetables are 'organic' to a chemist. But then again, to a phycisist, little 'work' is being done at a desk job, and after sleeping one always has -less- 'energy', never more.

I would love it if we developed a more precise and specific language, but the fact is different discourse communities use the same term in different ways, and I don't see any reason for the academic community's usage to be deemed inherently 'more correct' than everyone else...provided a critical mass of consistent usage is reached amongst the non-academics.

---------------------------------------

Hmmm..... a quick glance at some dictionaries shows 'organic' and 'cynic' having both definitions (per word) used above.... but fatalist only has the academic/philosophy one. So maybe the critical mass of mis-use hasn't been reached yet.

No, no, no! I was completely agreeing and trying to emphasize. I didn't mean for it to sound any other way. My sincerest apolotiges if it did.

Those who know me around here know that I am almost phobic about this very thing. The misinterpretation of the meaning of a single word can lead to huge upsets.

And even dictionaries themselves are often no help. (Try figuring our the difference between "ethics" and "morals" using only a dictionary - they are almost universally defined in terms of each other.)

Rational people can ususally iron out these kind of problem. But when a person is intolerant about it, insisting that their meaning is the only one that should ever be used by anyone, it can become very problematic. And the problem compounds when they are highly emotional about it (as in your example.)

Bushido,

I didn't realize that there may have been a misunderstanding with Sky's earlier post until I read Sky's later post...so now I'd like to be very clear....

....your statement about explaining philosophical definitions just reminded me of these other situations; in my experience communicating with you, you are nothing at all like either of those people (who had insisted on a particular definition). You strike me as an intelligent person with flexibility of mind who listens to and considers others' points of view.

Sky wrote:


Yeah, definitely. In both cases, I think the people had some kind of mental or emotional 'challenge' which had nothing at all to do with the matter of definitions.


To everyone... apologies for going so far off topic.

Well in my anecdote regarding fatalism, he used it in a derogatory way, and to be honest if I where fatalistic I would not have taken offense, becuase I would have believed he could have come to no other conclusion, he was destined to determine I was a fatalist. Which I am not, but still didn't take offense, lol the irony. I did try to correct him at first, but was rudely interrupted with a few choice ad homs and a point to my lack of intelligence and this prompted me to hesitate and observe . . . Instead of hacking into that I decided to really think about why he said this . . . and my interpretation of his tone, body language, and emotional response to my one liner, well my verdict was to walk away. lol.

If one single statement, predictive, or fatalistic gets someone worked up, well lets just say I have learned a thing or two in my last 10 years and find that if I let myself go without really thinking about who I am discussing things with it can get messy . . . and it was at work, double messy.


No no no offense taken, I posted, and then reread, and thought to myself there could be some quite witty double entoundre [sp] in sky's post and my response. hehe. Another great example of language failing us, I am sure if we where in a room together it would have been clear, or at least immediately clarified.

But back to this topic, I think that as more and more devices like RFID, cameras at every street corner, GPS, centralized health records ect become available, the more privacy as we know it goes out the window, and this was really what got that guy worked up, perhaps my response seemed kind of apathetic to him, perhaps the fact I was not surprised by his diatribe took him off guard . . . who knows. What I found funny was that he jumped to the conclusion that I disagreed with him, when really I agreed with him, but didn't care.

I dont loose sleep over big brother, I just try to keep my head down, and not be a pest.

PLEASE BIG BROTHER IF YOU ARE READING THIS, WE ARE COOL BRO!!!

(For future reference, it's "entendre". And yes there were some good one's there once I went back and read them again myself. So back to the topic...)

It seems that the only real objection is the privacy issue.

The basic reasoning is obviously that we don't want information to be used to hurt us.

But I think there are two distincly different parts to that.

The first is a situation involving evil intent by the user of the information. That is, we might not want people to know that we have a lot of money so as not to become the target of identity theft or some such. The is basically an ethical person who doesn't want to be victimized by an unethical person.

And then there is the other side, which certers around people who have "something to hide". This is basically an unethical person who doesn't want to be "found out". Such a person is on the other side of the situation in the previous example. He is the unethical person who has victimized an ethical person.

So the reporter at the end of the video pretty much hit the nail on the head. It's really a tradeoff between security and convenience. And both of those really depend on the viewpoint. For the cops, it's convenient to be able to instantly identify the location of anyone. But also, for the cops, it's insecure in that it opens up a whole area of potential crime. And the same logic applies to all aspects of the whole situation.

Personally, I would be against it because for me, the potential problems don't outweight the potential benefits.

But that's just my own perspective.

Hope not.

These days if they want to steal my wallet, my bank account or my ID, they at least don't have to carve into my flesh or bones or my eyes where my chip would be placed if the implant technology were in place.

I completely agree.

Well, I think that's the idea. That wouldn't be likely unless you were worth some serious amount of cash.

Sorry 'bout this.

I meant to say ..."the potential benefits don't outweight the potential problems"

that's funny because I read it wrong. I read it the way you meant it, not the way you wrote it.

So, I still agree with you.