Bill Gates steps down from Microsoft's board of directors to focus on philanthropic work - advocates digitally tagging people

[Kisai]

On 3/13/2020 at 3:28 PM, DrMacintosh said:

Bill-millions of unpaid taxes-Gates decides to pursue philanthropy. 

Sorry no. (2)Bill Gates and (3)Warren Buffet may be rich, but they're at least not actively seeking to destroy the world with their billions.

 

https://givingpledge.org/

 

Quote

In August 2010, 40 of America’s wealthiest people joined together in a commitment to give the majority of their wealth to address some of society’s most pressing problems. Created by Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett, the Giving Pledge came to life following a series of conversations with philanthropists around the world about how they could collectively set a new standard of generosity among the ultra-wealthy.

 

You know who else committed to the giving pledge? (5)Mark Zuckerberg, (25)Elon Musk and (304)Richard Branson. You know who hasn't? (1)Jeff Bezos (Amazon), though his ex-wife MacKenzie has. 

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/

 

[Delicieuxz]

Bill Gates did a reddit AMA today.

 

One of the things Gates seemed to advocate for is digitally-tagging people, such as with a chip or a tattoo:

 

In the OP, I openly wondered if Bill Gates was supportive of Microsoft going hardcore on the data-harvesting with Windows 10, or if he was hands-off on that. But his AMA comment and some research into what the digital ID he's talking about is and the tattoo-tag research he's funded seems to reveal that he is a personal advocate of ubiquitous tracking of people.

 

 

 

So, my guess is that Windows 10's prolific data-harvesting is something he is a big supporter of.

 

An argument of tagging people to monitor whether they're vaccinated (which would open the door to all kinds of other uses and abuses) sounds comparable to me to the one of outlawing encryption for the alleged purpose of combating child abuse.

 

The tattoo thing sounds potentially different than a unique personal ID. But if a personal ID is implanted into somebody, since an ID is unique to one person in the world, once a person is ID'd for one purpose they're essentially ID'd for every purpose. And a database of people's IDs that's accessible for a certain industry, such as the medical industry, to make use of won't stay protected for long.

[mr moose]

Being able to have a definitive log of which vaccines (form which batches and at what time) a person was given without having to go back through records is an incredibly awesome idea and something we shouldn't be trying to associate with big brother.   Lack of medical record clarity is what kills so many people in the health system.

[Delicieuxz]

Having access to important information when it's needed is a good thing. That doesn't imply that any method used to accomplish that is worth its trade-off.

 

There are many things that kill many people in health systems where the deaths could be avoided by measures that would infringe on individual rights, privacy, and security. Just saying that something potentially exploitable should be done because it will save lives is a 'think of the children' type of argument.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

Having access to important information when it's needed is a good thing. That doesn't imply that any method used to accomplish that is worth its trade-off.

 

There are many things that kill many people in health systems where the deaths could be avoided by measures that would infringe on individual rights, privacy, and security. Just saying that something potentially exploitable should be done because it will save lives is a 'think of the children' type of argument.

If you want people to keep dying because your afraid of something being exploited then don't have the chip.  trying to argue everyone else should suffer a second rate medical system because it can be exploited is like arguing everyone should grow their own food because it could be tainted at the factory.   This has nothing to do with think of the children. 

 

The idea that in an accident and I am unconscious that the emergency staff can know definitively what I am allergic to, what I am currently being treated for, what vaccines I have had and what conditions I am susceptible to is very welcome because it is the difference between me surviving and dying.

[Delicieuxz]

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If you want people to keep dying because

In addition to being a 'think of the children' argument, that is one heck of a straw-man.

 

Like I said:

 

"There are many things that kill many people in health systems where the deaths could be avoided by measures that would infringe on individual rights, privacy, and security."

 

And:

 

"That doesn't imply that any method used to accomplish that is worth its trade-off."

 

Quote

 trying to argue everyone else should suffer a second rate medical system because it can be exploited is like arguing everyone should grow their own food because it could be tainted at the factory.

I didn't argue what anybody should choose to do, but I am voicing concerns of the potential for exploitation.

 

Quote

The idea that in an accident and I am unconscious that the emergency staff can know definitively what I am allergic to, what I am currently being treated for, what vaccines I have had and what conditions I am susceptible to is very welcome because it is the difference between me surviving and dying.

That isn't a new concept, but it's an argument for having a medical ID, and not a particular form of medical ID.

 

Being physically tagged isn't the only way medical personnel can have access to that information. That is normally associated with your medical ID, which maybe most people carry in their wallet. You could also have it on a bracelet. Or, it could be brought-by up somebody who's with you and knows who you are. It could likely be retrieved by looking at photo ID on you. Or, maybe it could be retrieved based on your phone number if you used it to call for medical help.

 

Reviewing the means isn't the same thing as rejecting the advertised goal. And medical purposes is hypothetically only one way a personal tag could be used.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

In addition to being a 'think of the children' argument, that is one heck of a straw-man.

 

Like I said:

 

"There are many things that kill many people in health systems where the deaths could be avoided by measures that would infringe on individual rights, privacy, and security."

 

And:

 

"That doesn't imply that any method used to accomplish that is worth its trade-off."

 

I didn't argue what anybody should choose to do, but I am voicing concerns of the potential for exploitation.

 

That isn't a new concept. But being physically tagged isn't the only way medical personnel can have access to that information. That is normally associated with your medical ID, which maybe most people carry in their wallet. You could have it on a bracelet. It could be brought-by up somebody who's with you and knows who you are. It could be retrieved by looking at photo ID on you. Or maybe it could accessible by your phone number if you used it to call for medical help.

 

Reviewing the means isn't the same thing as rejecting the advertised goal. And medical purposes is hypothetically only one way a personal tag could be used.

You are trying to argue systems that save lives shouldn't be implemented because you fear the trade off isn't worth it.  You even said people die when measures could be taken to avoid it but you don't want those measures taken (in bold).  Me pointing that out is not a straw man, that is the direct message you sent.

 

A straw,mam argument is when you attack an argument that wasn't made (one created solely for attacking).  I only rebutted what you actually said.

[Delicieuxz]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You are trying to argue systems that save lives shouldn't be implemented because you fear the trade off isn't worth it.  You even said people die when measures could be taken to avoid it but you don't want those measures taken (in bold).  Me pointing that out is not a straw man, that is the direct message you sent.

 

A straw,mam argument is when you attack an argument that wasn't made (one created solely for attacking).  I only rebutted what you actually said.

"If you want people to keep dying because" and "You are trying to argue systems that save lives shouldn't be implemented because you fear the trade off isn't worth it" are definitely straw-man arguments.

 

I don't see where you rebutted anything I said. I see that you offered the basic idea that having access to person's medical history can be useful, but made no argument why a very specific implementation of personal identification-retrieval is a great idea, something that isn't already accomplished by other means, and not open to exploitation.

 

The 'system that saves lives' would be the easy retrieval of a person's medical history based on personal identification. That system doesn't imply a particular means to accomplish that information retrieval by identification.

 

 

Re: "The idea that in an accident and I am unconscious that the emergency staff can know definitively what I am allergic to, what I am currently being treated for, what vaccines I have had and what conditions I am susceptible to is very welcome because it is the difference between me surviving and dying."

15 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

That isn't a new concept, but it's an argument for having a medical ID, and not a particular form of medical ID.

 

Being physically tagged isn't the only way medical personnel can have access to that information. That is normally associated with your medical ID, which maybe most people carry in their wallet. You could also have it on a bracelet. Or, it could be brought-by up somebody who's with you and knows who you are. It could likely be retrieved by looking at photo ID on you. Or, maybe it could be retrieved based on your phone number if you used it to call for medical help.

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

"If you want people to keep dying because" and "You are trying to argue systems that save lives shouldn't be implemented because you fear the trade off isn't worth it" are definitely straw-man arguments.

 

I don't see where you rebutted anything I said. I see that you offered the basic idea that having access to person's medical history can be useful, but made no argument why a very specific implementation of personal identification-retrieval is a great idea, something that isn't already accomplished by other means, and not open to exploitation.

 

The 'system that saves lives' would be the easy retrieval of a person's medical history based on personal identification. That doesn't imply a particular means to accomplish that retrieval.

 

 

you said people die when possible measures (that you don't want implemented) would save them.  That literally means you don't care if people die, you don't want them to have the option of a system that would have prevented it.  PERIOD.

[Delicieuxz]

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

you said people die when possible measures (that you don't want implemented) would save them.  That literally means you don't care if people die, you don't want them to have the option of a system that would have prevented it.  PERIOD.

It's a fact that there are many things about healthcare systems that kill many people, where the deaths could be avoided by measures that would infringe on individual rights, privacy, and security. But to say my stating that fact means I don't care if people die and that I don't want people to have medical options available to them is untenable. So, it doesn't literally or at-all mean what you claim there.

 

As I previously said, the system is having medical records retrievable by personal ID, and not a specific implementation of personal ID. You seem to agree with that in your first response, where you said:

 

"Being able to have a definitive log of which vaccines (form which batches and at what time) a person was given without having to go back through records is an incredibly awesome idea"

 

And as I also said, I haven't argued what anybody should choose to do. I am just voicing concerns about the potential for exploitation of a particular method of medical information retrieval.

[mr moose]

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

snip

Didn't read the reply, I'm not really interested in derailing the thread in nonsensical arguments over semantics.

[Guest]

Finally gonna retire then.... ok... well.....

 

 

 

 

 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

It's a fact that there are many things about healthcare systems that kill many people, where the deaths could be avoided by measures that would infringe on individual rights, privacy, and security.

Such as? Also legally no, none of these would be a breach of privacy, unless your doctor is pulling up your tax records and loan history. Other than that anything to do with your health and living environment is within the bounds of their profession and legal access. The few times it does become an problem is when you are unconscious or incapacitated and there is no immediately accessible medical advocate, in this situation it falls on the medical professional to use best judgement for what is necessary at the time. You can refuse care but only when you are capable of doing so or have a preexisting legal declaration, which has to be on record somewhere or it's useless and cannot be used for medical malpractice. 

 

Right to life supersedes all, to the extent your choice in the matter can be removed. Privacy is almost a non matter when it's medical care between you and a certified professional. You do not get to decide what you want to tell a medical professional or what to withhold if it is pertinent information i.e. HIV positive status and you can be prosecuted. 

 

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

That is normally associated with your medical ID, which maybe most people carry in their wallet. You could also have it on a bracelet.

Nobody here has a medical ID on them at all unless they have a medical condition that would make it advantageous to have one on them and is also more than just an ID. Neither can you rely on or should have to rely on such a thing, far too easy for something to happen and it not being available.

 

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Just saying that something potentially exploitable should be done because it will save lives is a 'think of the children' type of argument.

The exact opposite of this statement is equally true. As such putting these discussions in to those types of statements is worthless and adds nothing.

 

If you want to go down a privacy argument track you should explain in more specific detail how you think it could, 'anything is possible' has no value.

 

3 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

The tattoo thing sounds potentially different than a unique personal ID. But if a personal ID is implanted into somebody, since an ID is unique to one person in the world, once a person is ID'd for one purpose they're essentially ID'd for every purpose. And a database of people's IDs that's accessible for a certain industry, such as the medical industry, to make use of won't stay protected for long.

We already have such forms of identification and are not abused. Every person has a National Health Index (NHI Number), everyone of working age has an IRD number, neither of these are abused and it's an extremely serious offence to.

 

Edit:

Speaking with extremely intimate knowledge of our health care system, both policy and IT side.

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 

Edit:

Speaking with extremely intimate knowledge of our health care system, both policy and IT side.

The last 10 years of my life has been working with people in very sensitive situations, information that could ruin a persons life if not handled correctly. Although they are out there, I have yet to meet a person who would intentionally misuse that information in a professional capacity.

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The last 10 years of my life has been working with people in very sensitive situations, information that could ruin a persons life if not handled correctly. Although they are out there, I have yet to meet a person who would intentionally misuse that information in a professional capacity.

I've had on many occasions the access and capability to retrieve anyone's medical (digital) history in the entire country, I also had and still have access to more detailed medical notes including counseling session notes. I even have the capability to access it without being detected or audited by those systems. You just don't bloody do it, ever, for any reason.

 

People in IT have more access than people like to think about or realize, even those in the responsible areas we support. Some things are just 'unthinkable'.

 

Edit:

Even me coming out and stating this is rather taboo tbh.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I've had on many occasions the access and capability to retrieve anyone's medical (digital) history in the entire country, I also had and still have access to more detailed medical notes including counseling session notes. I even have the capability to access it without being detected or audited by those systems. You just don't bloody do it, ever, for any reason.

 

People in IT have more access than people like to think about or realize, even those in the responsible areas we support. Some things are just 'unthinkable'.

 

Edit:

Even me coming out and stating this is rather taboo tbh.

It reminds me of that old saying in the 90's, be kind to the IT guy, he knows what websites you visit at lunch time.

[Delicieuxz]

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

13 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

There are many things that kill many people in health systems where the deaths could be avoided by measures that would infringe on individual rights, privacy, and security.

 

Such as?

Such as forced procedures, forced medication, forced quarantine (while this is happening during the current coronavirus situation to protect the public at-large, there are always individual cases which are not acted on similarly), forced counselling, forced psychiatric commitment... some of these things happen in select cases, but for most cases they are protected against on the grounds of rights of liberty, privacy, and personal security.

 

Do Patients Have the Right to Refuse Medical Treatment?

"The right to refuse treatment goes hand in hand with another patient right—the right to informed consent. You should only consent to medical treatment if you have sufficient information about your diagnosis and all treatment options available in terms you can understand. Before a physician can begin any course of treatment, the physician must make the patient aware of what he plans to do. For any course of treatment that is above routine medical procedures, the physician must disclose as much information as possible so you may make an informed decision about your care.

 

When a patient has been sufficiently informed about the treatment options offered by a physician, the patient has the right to accept or refuse treatment, which includes what a health care provider will and won't do.

 

It is unethical to physically force or coerce a patient into treatment against his will if he is of sound mind and is mentally capable of making an informed decision."

 

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General comment No. 1 (2014) on Article 12: "Equal recognition before the law, specifies that forced treatment, among other discriminatory practices must be abolished in order to ensure that full legal capacity is restored to persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others."

 

Quote

Also legally no, none of these would be a breach of privacy, unless your doctor is pulling up your tax records and loan history. Other than that anything to do with your health and living environment is within the bounds of their profession and legal access. The few times it does become an problem is when you are unconscious or incapacitated and there is no immediately accessible medical advocate, in this situation it falls on the medical professional to use best judgement for what is necessary at the time. You can refuse care but only when you are capable of doing so or have a preexisting legal declaration, which has to be on record somewhere or it's useless and cannot be used for medical malpractice. 

The first post I made on the topic, the one you're responding to, doesn't only address the medical vaccine tattoo idea, but the concept of having a unique digital ID embedded into one's body, AKA a microchip, in-line with Bill Gates' "digital certificate" vision. Presumably, such an ID would be accessible by a digital scan.

 

Quote

Right to life supersedes all, to the extent your choice in the matter can be removed. Privacy is almost a non matter when it's medical care between you and a certified professional. You do not get to decide what you want to tell a medical professional or what to withhold if it is pertinent information i.e. HIV positive status and you can be prosecuted.

But that's a right to life, and not a dictate that you will have life by particular means. You also have a right to spend your money - you aren't forced to spend it on particular things. You also have a right to use public spaces - you aren't forced to use them in certain ways or (usually) at certain times.

 

Quote

Nobody here has a medical ID on them at all unless they have a medical condition that would make it advantageous to have one on them and is also more than just an ID. Neither can you rely on or should have to rely on such a thing, far too easy for something to happen and it not being available.

Whether people in a particular area do a certain thing, the point remains that the concept of what is being accomplished by an embedded tag is not new and it doesn't accomplish a goal that wasn't previously already being accomplished. It is only one implementation of a particular goal that can be accomplished by a variety of means and already is accomplished by various of those other means.

 

Quote

The exact opposite of this statement is equally true. As such putting these discussions in to those types of statements is worthless and adds nothing.

 

If you want to go down a privacy argument track you should explain in more specific detail how you think it could, 'anything is possible' has no value.

I don't think the opposite is true.  'Having access to a person's entire medical history on the spot is an awesome idea' is a generic scenario that glosses over the context that idea appears in and the crux of the topic. It's like saying regarding a proposal to remove seatbelts from cars, 'the extra mobility from not being chaffed by a seatbelt sounds awesome', ignoring the topic of safety to validate an action based on only an isolated subset of its consequences. To reach a rational conclusion, the full subject must be considered.

 

Or, it'd be like a judge ruling in a case of a politician's theft of public funds, 'being wealthy would be awesome, so this politician did no wrong'. It doesn't actually approach and address the central considerations of the topic.

 

 

As to how a bodily-embedded scannable ID situation could be exploited... well, a person is protected against unlawful searches. They aren't protected against scans. Sharing one's ID with another requires consent, and to overcome that consent a person's personal space has to be invaded. A scan doesn't necessarily have to do those things and so it takes control out of a person's hands. Further, if a person doesn't want to be ID'd, with separable ID they can avoid that situation. With ID embedded into their body, they can't.

 

With digital systems, it is much easier to tap and exploit them than it is where a physical mechanism and person-to-person communication for verification are required. A form of microchip digital ID could hypothetically be tapped to scan people in all sorts of places without their knowing - when voting, when leaving their home, when entering a store, when crossing a border, when using a computer, etc. The looking-ahead possibilities for exploitation of an embedded digital ID are endless, and many of them could destroy many good things.

 

Quote

We already have such forms of identification and are not abused. Every person has a National Health Index (NHI Number), everyone of working age has an IRD number, neither of these are abused and it's an extremely serious offence to.

 

Edit:

Speaking with extremely intimate knowledge of our health care system, both policy and IT side.

In this discussion, I've already been using the fact that other methods to access a person's entire medical history already exist as a point to show that the concept isn't new, that an bodily-embedded digital ID system isn't the only way to accomplish the goal, and that being in favour of having a person's medical history accessible doesn't mean that every specific method to accomplish that task is necessarily a good one.

 

NHI and IRD aren't digital IDs embedded into your body that can retrieve your ID easily without requiring your will or a forceful overriding of your will, even without your knowing while conscious. That's the difference that makes them not exploitable like a digital certificate microchip system could hypothetically be.

[Beerzerker]

12 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

One of the things Gates seemed to advocate for is digitally-tagging people, such as with a chip or a tattoo:

NO.

Not even an option here.

You want it, you get it but I'm not.

 

~Nuff said.

 

 

[Delicieuxz]

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

I've had on many occasions the access and capability to retrieve anyone's medical (digital) history in the entire country, I also had and still have access to more detailed medical notes including counseling session notes. I even have the capability to access it without being detected or audited by those systems. You just don't bloody do it, ever, for any reason.

 

People in IT have more access than people like to think about or realize, even those in the responsible areas we support. Some things are just 'unthinkable'.

 

Edit:

Even me coming out and stating this is rather taboo tbh.

Well, that's you speaking your moral scruples as a faithful professional, and not as a cyber-criminal, an authoritarian police force or government, a foreign hostile actor, spy, subversive, an abusive parent or partner, etc.

 

A bodily-embedded digital ID grants a degree of persistence and certainty to medical information and personal location that makes it highly exploitable. To exploit it, what would be needed would be the appropriate scanning technology and the records. If it is possible for both to be acquired by outside actors, and it is, they eventually will be acquired. And it is also likely that some industry workers would be attracted to the idea of profiting themselves by facilitating the leaking of the necessary records database and tech.

[MageTank]

58 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Well, that's you speaking your moral scruples as a faithful professional, and not as a cyber-criminal, an authoritarian police force or government, a foreign hostile actor, spy, subversive, an abusive parent or partner, etc.

 

A bodily-embedded digital ID grants a degree of persistence and certainty to medical information and personal location that makes it highly exploitable. To exploit it, what would be needed would be the appropriate scanning technology and the records. If it is possible for both to be acquired by outside actors, and it is, they eventually will be acquired. And it is also likely that some industry workers would be attracted to the idea of profiting themselves by facilitating the leaking of the necessary records database and tech.

This is the part that concerns me. Exactly what information is going to be collected, and is it outside of the realm of possibilities that someone might be able to use this chip ID to get personal information from me simply by me walking through a scanner unbeknownst to me?

 

Will insurance companies setup their own scanners to scan for pre-existing medical issues to deny coverage to potential customers? I am not a paranoid anti-government conspiracy theorist, but there are definitely some shady people/companies out there that would gladly exploit this for a buck if there were any means to doing so.

[Delicieuxz]

35 minutes ago, MageTank said:

This is the part that concerns me. Exactly what information is going to be collected, and is it outside of the realm of possibilities that someone might be able to use this chip ID to get personal information from me simply by me walking through a scanner unbeknownst to me?

I think it is ultimately inevitable with the tech, whether it would come about in 5 years or 30 years. And as more time passes, that situation becomes more and more of a certainty.

 

And while today's tech might require such a chip to be scanned from an extremely close proximity, future scanner tech might be able to detect and read such an ID chip from further away. Plus, there is no guarantee that whoever manufactures ID chips won't sneak in something undeclared capability or potential into mass-produced chips at the behest of a government or corporation.

 

Quote

Will insurance companies setup their own scanners to scan for pre-existing medical issues to deny coverage to potential customers? I am not a paranoid anti-government conspiracy theorist, but there are definitely some shady people/companies out there that would gladly exploit this for a buck if there were any means to doing so.

A bodily-embedded scannable ID could be exploited for a lot more than medical-related purposes. It could serve as a ubiquitious tracker for everywhere a person is at all times - just like a mobile phone's location data is today, while the phone is turned on and not in airplane mode (though they still track while in airplane mode and transmit past location data as soon as a person turns off airplane more).

 

But a bodily-implanted chip would never be turned off, would never be separated from a person, and would have absolute persistence, which means that exploiting them would be more alluring than even a mobile phone's location data.

 

And even without access to medical database of people's IDs, with standardized medical chips, 3rd-parties could begin creating their own ID databases of people based on the unique signature of people's medical chip ID.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

I've had on many occasions the access and capability to retrieve anyone's medical (digital) history in the entire country, I also had and still have access to more detailed medical notes including counseling session notes. I even have the capability to access it without being detected or audited by those systems.

Then it's already been done. Perhaps not by you, but you're not the only one with such a job, someone will eventually replace you, someone has a similar job in another institution, in another country, in another personal situation, under different circumstances.

 

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

You just don't bloody do it, ever, for any reason.

 

People in IT have more access than people like to think about or realize, even those in the responsible areas we support. Some things are just 'unthinkable'.

Yeah, but "it's totally exploitable, it's just we IT people happen to be good" isn't really an argument for such a system, I'd dare to say...

 

 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Yeah, but "it's totally exploitable, it's just we IT people happen to be good" isn't really an argument for such a system, I'd dare to say...

My access and that wider system are two very different things, and outside of anyone directly in the medical IT field it is impossible to abuse it or gain any information without breaching multiple cyber security laws and privacy laws and be in jail for a long time.

 

It's not exploitable if you have legitimate access like you're saying/thinking there, I can breach my employment contract and code of ethics and the would also be liable to the very same cyber security laws and privacy laws and also go to jail.

 

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Then it's already been done. Perhaps not by you, but you're not the only one with such a job, someone will eventually replace you, someone has a similar job in another institution, in another country, in another personal situation, under different circumstances.

The problem issue trying to be raised has never happened here and likely never will. Medical information has been available through IT systems since the late 80s here and we have a dedicated health information network that is used to pass information between clinics and hospitals so there is physical security across the country, the data is encrypted and access is restricted. Unauthorized access on that side of it is vastly more difficult than people seem to think, if we're talking about fear of abuse and privacy breaches if (an already existing) personal identifier was used.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Unauthorized access on that side of it is vastly more difficult than people seem to think, if we're talking about fear of abuse and privacy breaches if (an already existing) personal identifier was used.

I'm happy to believe that, except you wrote a post about how it's easier than people seem to think  

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Whether people in a particular area do a certain thing, the point remains that the concept of what is being accomplished by an embedded tag is not new and it doesn't accomplish a goal that wasn't previously already being accomplished. It is only one implementation of a particular goal that can be accomplished by a variety of means and already is accomplished by various of those other means.

Yes it does, if I'm in a car accident and go to hospital and some form of identification is not found on the scene so they know who I am then on admittance my identity is unknown so therefore my medical history is not available. It solves that problem which is not uncommon. Thing is for immediate critical care who you are most often is not important or a requirement for care, this is why medical bands exist for those where it does matter like not being able to have certain pain medication like Morphine. People have died because those bands have come off.

 

Other methods consistently and continue to fail, repeatedly.