At one time, the State of California wanted to require people to have some kind of ID on them at all times. So if you were walking your dog, you would have been required to have ID. IIRC, and maybe I don't, the reasoning was that people out walking, running, jogging, etc. were being injured and there was no way to ID them.

DHS blinked with respect to NJ and has given the state yet another extension, this time for 9 months.

Microchip implant is the answer.

We do it for lost dogs. Why not a person?

Wouldn't that be INVADING one's body--dogs are generally NOT informed of the procedure in advance and given the chance to OPT-OUT.:rolleyes:

[The implanted chip could also be used to track one's activities.:td:]

Because people are rational, sentient, independent beings. Pets are, ultimately, property.

Because, as nrr points out, any mandatory microchip could be used to track your location at all times, leading to a loss of privacy on a staggering scale.

But if it saves even one life....The life of a child perhaps?

There is already a loss of privacy on a staggering scale -- and it's due to our phones, our internet use, and our purchase habits.

And given the ever expanding use of RFID chips in so many things that tie back to an individual, being subject to no privacy -- except as the privacy protections may be mandated by law -- is just a matter of when (and the related technological expansion) there will be almost no privacy except that which me maintain in silence and just in our own heads .... unless and until government is made to protect privacy and enable citizens to reclaim a zone of privacy that has hitherto been shrinking.

I'm calling BS on this. I know better. THIS IS FLYERTALK!!! :)

And if it costs even one life ... the life of a child, perhaps, whose loss of privacy leads to their suicide or homicide? What then?

And until that happens, I see no reason to erode the loss of privacy further by creating a unique identifier that would only accelerate that loss, for questionable gains (if any).

Indeed. But it's long overdue for the privacy rights of individuals to be beefed up against governmental and non-governmental parties and to have the privacy rights end up better enshrined in law.

Agreed.

If EVERYONE were confined to their homes: (1)all travel will be by VIRTUAL trips, (2)the grocer (via drones) delivers (govt) approved meals--there would be little chance of terrorist activity.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure DaveBlaine was kidding.

Ahh, yes, but history inexorably shows that the forces of good (govt) and greed (non-govt) always trump those of the individual.

The speed at which we are losing our privacy might be slower or faster at times but individuals continue to lose the battle, particularly when they are not only complicit but enthusiastically (if naively) encouraging it thru the use of facebook, smartphones, credit cards, etc., like lemmings going to the cliff.

Folks who are concerned about individual privacy better take heed of the "Internet of Things" (IoT). They do not put it in writing often but one of the primary reasons proponents (govt, bidness) of IoT are so excited they wet themselves just thinking about it is that everyone will be constantly surrounded by their gadgets which will be constantly reporting via that internet on everything they do (such as when and what you take from the refrigerator, when you get up to pee in the middle of the night, when a certain type of "marital aid" is used, when and what you pour out of the liquor cabinet, what medications you are taking, how big a load of laundry you wash, etc.).

A nationally recognized identity document, let alone requiring documentation to ensure one is properly eligible to vote, is the least of our worries.