FDA Approves Use of Chip in Patients.

[Fireproof]

Think about it. You'd need to get up close and scan the parson with a special device to find out anything. I think you'd notice if someone came up and zapped your arm. Of course, the possibility of abuse is there, as it is with practically every technology we've ever invented. I think we need to be aware, not afraid. This is certainly not a global tracking technology, so chill. Besides, I'm not particularly afraid of someone scanning my arm and finding out my drug allergies and medical history. As Technomancer said, teh range of the chip is extreemly limited, so there's no need to worry.

[Fsiphskilm]

I agree with Ol

[Mithrandir]

No no no. That's WHY they are making it so SHORT RANGE Heck, the RFID technology is WAY more powerful than that. I can get a sticker for my car that's got an RFID on it which will auto-deduct from an account when I go over a certain bridge. It's called fast-track, and they are widely used in the SF bay area, and I suspect other places as well. Wallmart requires their suppliers to use it, and that stuff can work from inside a tractor trailer. They MAKE it a limited range.

And I don't think it's going to manditory any time soon, btw. But that's a debate we really don't want to get into here...

[ashfire]

As one in the emergency medical field we are not suppost to search a patient's pockets for wallets unless a police officer is present to keep us from being accused of theft of a person's personnals items. We can cut their clothes off to do medical procedures but don't go into the pockets.
If a patient could wear a necklace or arm band with a chip in it (I wear a medical alert for drug allergy) I would go for that. But if people want a chip under the skin let them have it if they want it and others like I would say to do.
Maybe the chip under the skin would be used for people who have brain disorders that could cause them to walk away from their home without out an ID and become lost.

I have heard of ideas that will one day be placed out in the field on ambulances. When a patients is on the cot going through the door of the ambulance, devices will record and scan the patient put the info on a screen in the ambulance and send it on to the hospital with the touch of a button.
Some items are being tested now in hospitals and some ambulances now.

[Technomancer]

<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
ABOUT THE RANGE OF THE CHIP

I wouldn't say it's limited range... In Israel they already starting putting paper thin trackers on products. So in about a year or so, I'm sure they can find you with a satalite even if the chip is only the size of a grain of rice.

I would be interested in seeing any information about this Israeli device. Do you have a link? I'm still pretty sure there are some very serious physical limitations to what you can do though in terms of transmission power and SNR, that's independant of chip technology.

Incidentally, I wasn't one hundred-percent correct about the antenna thing (I hate antenna theory). Generally, you wouldn't use an antenna shorter than about half a wavelength, since the efficiency drops off quite a bit. However, you can do so if you really have to.

[Fireproof]

So in about a year or so, I'm sure they can find you with a satalite even if the chip is only the size of a grain of rice.

The chips would need to be broadcasting to the satelites. To do that, they'd need to be substantially larger, and they'd need a monster-sized power source.

[Mithrandir]

...OR the satelites would have to extremely powerful. Remember, broadcasting and receiving are BOTH variable in power. Of course it would difficult to do, but it is something to think about. I mean, we have satelite phones already, and they aren't THAT big. 10 years ago they were HUGE, and now they can fit easily in your pocket.

Think of it this way: A simple pair of bunny ears on the TV top do NOT get as good a reception as a powered antanea array on the roof. It's not about changing the broadcast power, it's about fine tunning the reception.

While I find his post to be unlikely, I just can't support your claim that it is "nonsense" either.

[Technomancer]

Your problems are going to be more than antenna gain, you also have to deal with noise, especially in your detector's amplifier. Aside from other sources, at a minimum you'll have to deal with thermal noise which will provide a guaranteed source proportional to both temperature and bandwidth.

Based on a back-of-the envelope calculation using Friis formula, I came up with a received power at the satellite end of ~-190 dB (using some fairly generous assumptions). Very likely the signal would be swamped by the satellite's self-noise.

[Mithrandir]

..But if you know the sigature of the self-noise, can't that be selectively filtered for?

(NOTE: IANAEE.)

...we are looking at technology 10 years from now, though. I'm guessing there will be SOME advance...

[Technomancer]

..But if you know the sigature of the self-noise, can't that be selectively filtered for?

Nope, it's broadband and is typically modelled as spectrally white Gaussian noise. This means that it is present at all frequencies and so can't be isolated from the signal of interest. We can reduce the effects of noise in an optimal way but these methods will break down if the noise is too great.

In any case, the act of filtering itself would be subject to the same thermal noise that affects our amplifiers, so you really wouldn't be able to get rid of it.

[Fsiphskilm]

Satalite Phones are lar

[Technomancer]

Satalite Phones are large because they send info, while the Isreal Projects are just markers... just trackers with less than 1 kb of info...

Not really, satellite phones are large because they require significantly greater power in order to reach a satellite, as opposed to a cell-phone base station. By contrast, cell phones, which also transmit digital signals are fairly small even given all of all the circuity for encoding, modulation and transmission (which would be substantially the same as for a satellite system). If we can't already, much of this part of the pre-transmission process will soon be encodable on a single chip.

[/quote]
They showed it with a camera on CBN, (700 club) Head over to their website and check the archives for the news on it... But it doesn't use electricity, it doesn't need a huge transmitter.[/QUOTE]

Do you have a link? I don't really want to root around trying to find it.

The device is still going to require some kind of power supply, either a battery or else it relies on power drawn from the environment (impinging EM waves, ambient heat, etc). In any event, while the transmitter is likely to be low power, this doesn't preclude some sophisticated equipment on the receiver side. Since the link distance is not going to be too large, one would expect to be able to pick up a signal without too much difficulty.

[Fireproof]

Satalite Phones are large because they send info, while the Isreal Projects are just markers... just trackers with less than 1 kb of info...

They showed it with a camera on CBN, (700 club) Head over to their website and check the archives for the news on it... But it doesn't use electricity, it doesn't need a huge transmitter.

No electricity? Methinks no. It would need to be broadcasting some info to even be recognized by a satellite. Not to knock you or Christian news, but somtimes, legitimate concern can be mixed with outright paranoia and/or oversensitivity to produce panic which is, for teh most part, unneccessary.

[mitsuki lover]

I have epilepsy and think that the chip would be a good idea overall.
I also agree that we need to stay clear of the entire theological-political
debate here.Ok,I'm not a Futurist so I'm less likely to see anything sinister
here.

[Fireproof]

I have epilepsy and think that the chip would be a good idea overall.
I also agree that we need to stay clear of the entire theological-political
debate here.Ok,I'm not a Futurist so I'm less likely to see anything sinister
here.

*Nods in agreement* Exactly. At this point, there's nothing to be afraid of. Global tracking is simply unrealistic, though there is the possibility for abuse via encoding more information than just your health problems. For now, it's okay to be concerned, so long as you don't give in to needless panic.