Microchip prohibited persons

[dfwkid]

Would there be any Constitutional issues if felons, etc were microchipped? If not, then why not do it? The technology has been around for years and is almost foolproof. Parolees have to report to their PO's who would verify/monitor the chips for signs of tampering and hacking. You could do the same for any prohibited person.

 

[TXAZ]

Microchips can be easily foiled by an uncooperative host. They are far from foolproof.
My guess is most of your target population would not be totally cooperative.

 

[Sharkbite]

Orwell....the mark of the Beast....im seeing a lot of push back on that idea.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Personally, I'm against the concept just because I don't trust technology or the government that far. Once we start microchipping prohibited persons, does that open the door to microchipping other segments of society for whatever the justification du jour happens to be?

Since the question was related to Constitutional issues, how about the 5th Amendment right to not incriminate oneself? I believe there is legal precedent that says a person who has a warrant out for his/her arrest cannot be compelled to tell a police officer who they are because the honest answer would be incriminating, and a false answer would also be incriminating.

If that's correct, then how would wearing a microchip while attempting to illegally purchase a firearm NOT be incriminating?

Further -- what about private, face-to-face sales? Would every sale have to be finalized at a gun shop large enough to be equipped with a chip scanner?

 

[TXAZ]

There is a more effective way to “scan” prohibited persons: Facial scan connected to a national prohibited database.
The technology is already in use and reasonably effective and tamper resistant compared to microchips.
On the other hand, should microchipping become a requirement, expect to see a small industry pop up in selling very inexpensive chip spoofers and blasters.

 

[JohnKSa]

I don't think there would be constitutional issues for doing something like that to felons as there are pretty solid precedents for restricting the rights and privacy of persons convicted of certain types of crimes.

I just wonder how effective the technique would be. I think it wouldn't be that hard to pull one out and put a new one in.

 

[Ben Dover]

I doubt it would be worth the effort.

I don't see any constitutional issues, but I'll betcha the religious fanatics would go completely ballistic!

 

[JERRYS.]

what's the difference in tracking a convict with an ankle monitor or a micro ship?

 

[olddav]

Let me see.
1.) All government programs are expanded over time so one would have to be concerned with what info the chip will contain as well as how it can and will be used.

2.) With the expansion of the program private industry may seek to participate with their own needs for data thus expanding the data in the chip.

3.) Embedded chips will need a reader and readers can and will be acquired by those with no legitimate need leaving you exposed to identity theft and/or data manipulation.

4.) For the system to work everyone will need to receive a chip. You have to provide a negative (prohibitive person)as well as a positive (non prohibited person). An absence of a signal indicating a prohibited person can not mean “Ok to proceed”.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There is a more effective way to “scan” prohibited persons: Facial scan connected to a national prohibited database.

Except to check if someone is prohibited, you’d have to scan their face - which over time would give you a database of facial scans of everyone who tried to purchase a gun.

 

[unclenunzie]

The suggestion that any government entity could by force of law surgically implant a device into someone, felon or not, sickens me. As to whether it is constitutional to do so, I don't know. It strikes me almost as hard as a government marking an individual's skin.

 

[Wag]

The microchips don't work the way people tend to believe. Why not just brand a guy in the forehead?

--Wag--

 

[dogtown tom]

dfwkid Would there be any Constitutional issues if felons, etc were microchipped? If not, then why not do it? The technology has been around for years and is almost foolproof. Parolees have to report to their PO's who would verify/monitor the chips for signs of tampering and hacking.

What do you think a microchip would prevent? After all, an ankle monitor guarantees that the felon never leaves his residence, never drives a car, never picks up a gun, never molests a child, never commits a robbery, and stays on the straight and narrow path forever.

You could do the same for any prohibited person.

Sure, lets microchip everyone under the age of eighteen, all foreign tourists and the mentally ill.

Dumbest idea ever.

 

[Pahoo]

Not going to happen !!! JMHO

Would there be any Constitutional issues if felons, etc were microchipped?

I believe that there would be some Constitutional issues, when challenged. I do believe that convicted felons should lose "some" rights but this is not one of them. By the time this would become lawful, there will be better and less intrusive ways of tracking. ……

Be Safe !!!

 

[HiBC]

I certainly respect the right of anyone to have whatever spiritual belief they may have.
I'm quite happy to leave your/my spiritual beliefs in the "None of my/your business" department.
My beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion,but I object to the labeling of "religios fanatics" or "fundamentalists'" to those who reject such implants,tattoos,etc as "mark of the beast"
Whether you or I feel the same way does not matter,and I will not comply with any requirement for an implant.

I am also highly suspect of people who sit around dreaming up schemes of "We can cure societies ills if we just impose this burden on YOU."

Get off imposing by force . How about an identification number tattoo'd on the forearm?? No,thank you. Hell No! No thank you!

I had to submit my fingerprints to the FBI database to get my carry permit.

I do not advocate submission of fingerrints and an FBI fingerprint check to buy a firearm....that's not my point, but reading my prints as a form of positive ID along with any history associated with those prints is far different than being invaded by an implant.

I don't see much difference in the thought process of the folks who would require the implant and the people who would require you to eat LSD or empty your wallet or engage n a carnal act.

Its about a lack of respect for where you end and I begin. Personal Boundaries.

 

[jmr40]

Except to check if someone is prohibited, you’d have to scan their face - which over time would give you a database of facial scans of everyone who tried to purchase a gun.

Your facial scan is already in data bases somewhere. With the proliferation of security cameras we are all in a system somewhere. It would just be a matter of centralizing the data.

 

[Pathfinder45]

It would be a gross violation of a person's inalienable rights. It's what NAZI Germany would have done if the technology was available at the time; instead, they used tattoos. Felons are humans and as such, they will continue to have some rights until they are no longer alive. With government over-reach, anyone could be legislated into a defacto felon. Just being born Jewish made a person a defacto felon in NAZI Germany. We have the Constitution that is supposed to help prevent government over-reach. But things that are legal today, could become felonious tomorrow with the stroke of a pen. The law is supposed to be a servant of the good and a punisher of the evil. And yet, at times, it has been just the opposite, even in America. Let's not be so naive as to confuse legal-versus-illegal, with right-versus-wrong.

 

[TXAZ]

Except to check if someone is prohibited, you’d have to scan their face - which over time would give you a database of facial scans of everyone who tried to purchase a gun.

Not necessarily. You can use a cryptographic hash to determine if there is a match without storing the actual facial data. That's actually a pretty common way to determine if something is a match without looking at the picture / data set.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Do you trust the government to use it that way?

 

[JohnKSa]

You can use a cryptographic hash to determine if there is a match without storing the actual facial data.

That works with very simple data sets, such as passwords. Once the data set size exceeds the length of the hash output, it doesn't work very well unless the only use is as a quick and dirty check of the file integrity.