Bill forbids mandatory microchip implants

redhawk41

New member
Bill forbids mandatory microchip implants
But information chip would be legal with person's consent
BY RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. ? Former Gov. Tommy Thompson was one of the first high-profile supporters of tiny microchips implanted in people's arms that would allow doctors to access medical information.

Now the state he used to lead is poised to become the first to ban governments and private businesses from forcing such implants on employees, privacy advocates say.

A proposal moving through the state Legislature would prohibit anyone from requiring people to have the tiny chips embedded in them or doing so without their knowledge. Violators would face fines of up to $10,000.

The plan authored by Rep. Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids, won approval in the Assembly last month. The state Senate is scheduled today to consider the measure, which would allow for the implants if the person gives consent.

Gov. Jim Doyle would sign the bill, a spokesman said.

Schneider aides say the legislator wants the law in place before companies and governments could use them to keep track of their employees.

"I don't think most people had thought about this as an issue, but it's scary. It's reality now," said Michael Schoenfield, an aide to Schneider. "Companies can or will be ordering their employees to have chips implanted. We want to stop that before it begins."

VeriChip Corp. of Delray Beach, Fla., is the only company with federal approval to implant such chips in people. The company so far has implanted 2,500 people worldwide with chips the size of a grain of rice under the skin of their upper arms, said spokesman John O. Procter.

Thompson endorsed this application last year as a way to give hospitals easy access to patients' medical records when he joined VeriChip's board of directors and vowed to "get chipped" himself.

Procter said Monday that Thompson has not undergone the procedure, which he likened to getting a shot, but plans to do so once more hospitals adopt the technology. The chips give off a radio frequency signal identifying a patient. The signal is used to access personal information in an Internet database.

VeriChip is also marketing the implants as a way for companies or governments to limit access to high-security areas.

In February, a Cincinnati surveillance equipment company became the first U.S. business to use this application when a handful of employees voluntarily got implants to allow them to enter secure rooms. Some employees in the Mexico attorney general's office have also been implanted with chips, whose signals are recognized by readers in doorways.

Procter said VeriChip supports the spirit of Schneider's bill and would not work with companies forcing employees to get implants. However, he said the implants are superior to employee badges or key chains as a way to limit access.

"It's more secure. It's discreet and it can't be lost or stolen," he said.

Privacy advocates say they are unaware of any companies forcing implants but are worried the technology is taking off with little debate about potential abuses.

Wisconsin would be the first state to ban mandatory implants, said Katherine Albrecht, a New Hampshire privacy advocate and co-author of "Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID."

Albrecht said she recently handed Thompson a copy of her book when he was in New Hampshire giving a speech.

"What an interesting irony that the foremost chip promoter in the world comes from Wisconsin and Wisconsin would be the first state to say, 'Hey, at least get our permission first,' " Albrecht said. "It's good that lawmakers in Wisconsin are paying attention to the fact that this technology even exists."

The proposal would leave the door open for the state to order implants to track sex offenders or for parents to track their children under an amendment offered by Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford. Such applications are years away because the chips do not yet allow for surveillance tracking.

"The bill may be a little ahead of its time, but I think it prevents some very onerous activity," Suder said. "It is groundbreaking."

http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/14420476.htm
 
Kind of amazing - proactive rather than reactive legislation. This bill is kind of limited in that it specifies chips, rather than any invasive machinery. But it is good that people are thinking about the future.
 
But it is good that people are thinking about the future.
Five years ago "microchip implants" were the subject of science fiction movies and "tin-foil hat" discussions. Now they are a serious privacy issue warranting legislation?

invasive machinery
I don't think I like the sound of that.
 
They will be. Would you rather they were regulated after the fact? Some things are simple minded paranoia. Some things are logical probabilities. We've known about the risks of this kind of thing for a lot longer than five years.


Other types of invasive machinery are only on the drawing board, like nanotech and tailored organisms. It doesn't really matter how it is made as long as it achieves the goal of invading your privacy.
 
I don't see how that is going to help. You have a "Choice" about getting a credit card, but it has become impossible to do anything without one. You have a "Choice" about whether or not you keep your money in a bank, but you cannot cash a paycheck unless you have a bank account, and in some states, it is actually a CRIME to have a certain amount of cash outside of a bank. You have a "Choice" as to whether or not you get your children immunized, yet you are not allowed to put your children in school untill they have been(you cant even put them in daycare). Do you see where I am going with this? It may be illegal to force someone to get the implant, BUT MARK MY WORDS, it will become mandatory through "other" laws and restrictions. And I guarantee you, they will be putting them in felons upon entering prison. people tend to forget about the fact that felons are people too, and deserve to be treated as such.
 
The proposal would leave the door open for the state to order implants to track sex offenders or for parents to track their children under an amendment offered by Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford. Such applications are years away because the chips do not yet allow for surveillance tracking.

"Implant it in the kids while their to young to object, Kids grow up to be adults after all..."

And why do they need to "Track" sex offenders? Don't states keep records of them anyways? What are they going to do, get together and form a secret army of rapists? Why not just let them get on with their lives and leave them in peace? If a "sex-offender" is that hardcore that he/she repeats their mistake, why not just make stricter laws for REPEAT offenders and let the poor bastards who made mistakes they regret try to move on.
 
Given the unending quest by "The Government" for more and more control over We The People, it is naive to think that at some point in time there won't be laws passed requiring that everyone be microchipped.

First it will be "for the children" - all children will have to be microchipped for their "safety." Next, everyone in the military, then all government employees, then all prisoners...
 
Some things are simple minded paranoia. Some things are logical probabilities.
In the 1930's Social Security was being proposed with corresponding Social Security number. Folks were reassured that the program would be voluntary and a number would not be required unless enrolling in the program. Fears were assuaged and Social Security was passed.

Fast forward to today. What can you do without a Social Security number? Not much.

Is it simple minded paranoia or logical probability that in three generations (or less) not much can be accomplished without a microchip implant?
 
I'm not understanding. If there is a legal limit enacted BEFORE the chips come into popular use, how is it likely to become a necessity.

The examples offered about Social Security and immunization don't seem to apply since there were no laws regulating their limits, and still aren't.


I do agree that things like this get out of hand, which is why I'm happy to hear of this proactive legislation.

WI is one of those states that does things like this. They have a legal limit on interest rates, and having seen the mess young sailors get into in VA, it is a very wise law. And it isn't going anywhere, either. This sounds like more good thinking.
 
Click the link in my sig. NAIS is the test bed for human chipping. After all, if they can track every domestic animal in the US then imagine how easy and effective chipping humans could be...
 
Sex offenders are trash.

No expensive tracking for them, just a low cost, dank cell to exist in. And that is still more than their worth.

We the people should install chips on some of our politicians and see what their up too.

nicotine, install chips in our kids? for what reason?
 
Here is the text of the bill that I could find:

2005 ASSEMBLY BILL 290
April 4, 2005 − Introduced by Representative SCHNEIDER. Referred to Committee on Criminal Justice and Homeland Security. AN ACT to create 146.25 of the statutes; relating to: prohibiting the required implanting of a microchip in an individual and providing a penalty. Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau This bill prohibits the requiring of an individual to undergo the implanting of a microchip and subjects a violator to a forfeiture of not more than $10,000. The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. 146.25 of the statutes is created to read:
146.25 Required implanting of microchip prohibited.
(1) No person may require an individual to undergo the implanting of a microchip.
(2) Any person who violates sub. (1) may be required to forfeit not more than $10,000. Each day of continued violation constitutes a separate offense.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2005/data/AB-290.pdf

And amendment:

ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT 1,
TO 2005 ASSEMBLY BILL 290
February 15, 2006 − Offered by Representative SUDER.
At the locations indicated, amend the bill as follows:
1. Page 1, line 4: delete “No” and substitute “Except as provided in sub. (1m), no”.
2. Page 1, line 5: after that line insert: “(1m) The prohibition under this section does not apply to any of the following:
(a) The implantation of a microchip as a condition of probation, parole, extended supervision, conditional release, or supervised release, if the individual undergoing the implantation is incarcerated, or if the individual is required to register as a sex offender under s. 301.45 and the department of corrections requires registrants to have a microchip implanted.
(b) The implantation of a microchip in a minor, as directed by the parent of the minor.”.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2005/data/AB290-AA1.pdf
 
A proposal moving through the state Legislature would prohibit anyone from requiring people to have the tiny chips embedded in them or doing so without their knowledge.

does this mean that imbedding chips in people without thier knowledge isn't already against the law???
 
Back
Top