Children As A Tool Of Control

I read from the news today that Kate and Gerry McCann plead for European 'amber alert' on abduction. Is this the step one?

This post is not about the abduction of Maddy. Abductions should not happen. But the horror scenario I've been ranting about on forums and in real life might've taken the first step.

Here is a quote of my post on a certain forum on 2006:

This is so beautiful way to make people to trap themselves - children. We can introduce a (RFID) chip which is 'only' a passive one, that can be activated to locate a missing child when radio signal hits it. (You can already have this kind of chip on your dog.) Just to protect the children from being lost, kidnapping, etc... The children grow up with the chip in the hand and it is easier to introduce a similar chip, but with credit capabilities. It is easier to get a parent to get a chip on child's arm to protect the child than to get the parent him/herself to get a chip to pay his/her bills.

We are used to having chips in the products we buy, that trigger the alarm should we nick the product from the store. If you buy any program, you have to nowadays register yourself in order to get any support. Windows checks wether your copy is legal when you enter their website. More and more small invisible/transparent control and tracking devices are introduced into our lives, some of them to prevent illegal activities, some of them to make our life 'easier'.

Before all of this we first got a bank card, then a credit card, a library card, Tesco-card, AH-bonus card, a driver's license, a social security card, an ID-card, what have you - this is the situation today. When we get introduced a combo-card (perhaps approximately at the same time as the passive chip), with all of this in one, it will make it easier to handle. Only, this will bring an issue. What if someone steals it or if you lose it? How about that chip? Then you can pay your bills, borrow your library books, open your doors, start your car, etc. with just a touch of a finger. And why not? You are used to have the passive locator chip in your hand anyways.

Now, with either active or semi-active chip, which draws the power from either kineticly from your movements or directly from your nerve system, you can even set up a little electric field around your skin. You cannot see, feel or notice it in any way. It doesn't interact with your current electrical devices, but what you can do is you store the data you want to show to other people. To connect into someone's chip, you just simply need to touch the skin of another person. From your reader, which can be for example your watch, you see the data the other person wants to give out. For example in a club you touch a pretty girl's hand while walking by and you can read what languages she speaks, is she single, what type of guys she likes, etc.. (Less human interaction and less 'failures' in it, you can see if the girl can potentially be interested in you even before you say one word to her.) Of course for police or doctor, who would have higher authorization to view more detailed information, the doctor could see your medical status and police could see your prior criminal offences. This field, or the RFID in combination of your thumbprint could be used to pay, borrow, open, etc. with just a touch of a finger.

Not only they can see where you shop, what you shop and when you shop, it will be possible to see and even control where a person is at any given moment. Control - if you have your personal ID embedded into you and you can open your car door, why wouldn't be possible to lock a door (even just) for you as well? A similar system for cars is in use today in few places. You have your chip on your windshield and when you drive past a toll bridge, it automatically detects your card, charges your bank account and opens the gate. This means that for example in Singapore they already know where people's cars are at any given moment.

Effective control is disguised as security. Most effective control is the type people demand upon themselves.

Ok... I will stop now and go to put one more layer of tinfoil into my room...

I was a bit agitated while writing this, so nevermind the all out crazy stuff and the parts that are figment of my imagination. Just think about the core-point.

And if that Amber-Alert comes to UK, where pets already have to have RFIDs, it takes only one media campaign where any famous person blurts out "but our pets are better secured than our children"...

Although I am not trying to say that this Maddy case wouldn't be horrible, I am still saying that this can be abused. If this kind of Amber-Alert turns into Red Alert and RFIDs go under the skin, with this media hype no-one is going to say anything against in the fear of being labeled as a supporter of child abduction.