[continued from previous message] 
  
 > nightclubs, automatically gaining the carrier entry €€€ and deducting the 
 > price of their drinks from a pre-paid account. 
 > 
 > The possible value of the technology to the UK's justice system was first 
 > highlighted 18 months ago, when Acpo's Mr Jones suggested the chips could 
 > be implanted into sex offenders. The implants would be tracked by 
 > satellite, enabling authorities to set up "zones", including schools, 
 > playgrounds and former victims' homes, from which individuals would be 
 > barred. 
 > 
 > "If we are prepared to track cars, why don't we track people?" Mr Jones 
 > said. "You could put surgical chips into those of the most dangerous sex 
 > offenders who are willing to be controlled." 
 > 
 > The case for: 'We track cars, so why not people?' 
 > 
 > The Government is struggling to keep track of thousands of offenders in 
 > the community and is troubled by an overcrowded prison system close to 
 > bursting. Internal tagging offers a solution that could impose curfews 
 > more effectively than at present, and extend the system by keeping sex 
 > offenders out of "forbidden areas". "If we are prepared to track cars, 
 > why don't we track people?" said Ken Jones, president of the Association 
 > of Chief Police Officers (Acpo). 
 > 
 > Officials argue that the internal tags enable the authorities to enforce 
 > thousands of court orders by ensuring offenders remain within their own 
 > walls during curfew hours €€€ and allow the immediate verification of ID 
 > details when challenged. 
 > 
 > The internal tags also have a use in maintaining order within prisons. In 
 > the United States, they are used to track the movement of gang members 
 > within jails. 
 > 
 > Offenders themselves would prefer a tag they can forget about, instead of 
 > the bulky kit carried around on the ankle. 
 > 
 > The case against: 'The rest of us could be next' 
 > 
 > Professionals in the criminal justice system maintain that the present 
 > system is 95 per cent effective. Radio frequency identification (RFID) 
 > technology is unproven. The technology is actually more invasive, and 
 > carries more information about the host. The devices have been dubbed 
 > "spychips" by critics who warn that they would transmit data about the 
 > movements of other people without their knowledge. 
 > 
 > Consumer privacy expert Liz McIntyre said a colleague had already proved 
 > he could "clone" a chip. "He can bump into a chipped person and siphon 
 > the chip's unique signal in a matter of seconds," she said. 
 > 
 > One company plans deeper implants that could vibrate, electroshock the 
 > implantee, broadcast a message, or serve as a microphone to transmit 
 > conversations. "Some folks might foolishly discount all of these 
 > downsides and futuristic nightmares since the tagging is proposed for 
 > criminals like rapists and murderers," Ms McIntyre said. "The rest of us 
 > could be next." 
 > 
 Sounds like the old cow fat on bullets in India story, 
 or all the bus conductors going out on strike in London 
 because of cow fat used to grease ticket machines. 
 What would stop anyone removing the chips and where 
 would the NHS get the money to perform these procedures? 
 No wait, don't tell me, they're going to be screwed in 
 with a anti-removal device that causes your head to 
 explode if you try... 
  
 -- 
 Wolfie 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)