Smart Phone encoded tattoos being offered in Phoenix.

[Anti Federalist]

Now available: Scannable bar codes on your skin

http://ktar.com/category/local-news-articles/20110328/Now-available:-Scannable-bar-codes-on-your-skin/

http://media.bonnint.net/az/25/2576/257656.jpg

PHOENIX -- A Phoenix tattoo artist is offering a new kind of tattoo that's raising some eyebrows.

At the Jade Monkey Tattoo in Phoenix, artist Levi Smith offers a tattoo that contains computer generated "QR" or quick response code, similar to a bar code.

"It's a basic kind of marketing bar code that you can scan with an app on your smart phone," Smith said, adding it can contain personal information like your name, medical history and other things.

"You can have it linked to a site on line, an image like some simple text. There's also some dynamic `qr' codes, I guess, that are coming out where the link destination can actually change online and then you can even put up contact information and stuff that can be uploaded to a smart phone."

Smith said some people have criticized the tattoos, comparing them with something in the Bible.

"I've had some friends jokingly call me the anti-Christ for wanting to do this -- meaning that it could be some kind of `mark of the beast' where you could use it to purchase things or be required to have one."

Smith said, however, the idea is not that complicated.

"You'd use it like an android or an iPhone or something and you'd use an app that's a bar code scanner essentially -- that can scan a variety of different bar codes. You just scan it like taking a picture and it links right up to the information instantly."

Three people have paid the $80 price to get the tattoos so far.

[Teaser Rate]

That’s pretty cool, I can see how this type of technology, along with radio chips implanted under the skin could serve a lot of useful purposes, especially for those with chronic medical conditions.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Wow. Um. I don't think this is a good thing.

[Anti Federalist]

That’s pretty cool, I can see how this type of technology, along with radio chips implanted under the skin could serve a lot of useful purposes, especially for those with chronic medical conditions.

Heh heh heh heh...cute.

[pcosmar]

That’s pretty cool,

I would expect you to think so.

[dannno]

UNSCANNABLE!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8yoSAiwY18

[dannno]

This movie is supposed to be about the future, but it sounds an aweful lot like the present :(

Meeting in the Oval Office:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9Igs&NR=1

[Nic]

It's voluntary. Stupid, but voluntary.

edit: btw did anyone else scan that person's arm?

[pcosmar]

It's voluntary. Stupid, but voluntary.



That is.
The concern is when it is not.

Talk about your "proof of concept".
And this is even more interesting,
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=906

[heavenlyboy34]

This is uncomfortably close to something out of a dystopian novel. :eek: Thanks for posting, AF. I normally don't listen to KTAR because it's so fucking boring, so I missed this. +rep

[NewRightLibertarian]

It could be idiocracy or the mark of the beast or perhaps a mix of both.

[Anti Federalist]

It could be idiocracy or the mark of the beast or perhaps a mix of both.

Just to be clear, here's the prophecy.

Very interesting to note that later translations changed "in" to "on".



15And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

16And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

18Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. (666)

[BamaAla]

This is uncomfortably close to something out of a dystopian novel. :eek: Thanks for posting, AF. I normally don't listen to KTAR because it's so fucking boring, so I missed this. +rep

Dystopian book of Revelation. Scary!

[PatriotOne]

He was on aj's show today. I haven't had a chance to listen yet but here it is....

Tattoo Artist Levi Smith: QR Codes - Alex Jones Tv 1/2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZzS4L2s6nw

Tattoo Artist Levi Smith: QR Codes - Alex Jones Tv 2/2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV2ud6ct-5I

[heavenlyboy34]

Dystopian book of Revelation. Scary!

That, and "Мы" by Zamyatin. Probably others that I don't know of too.

[BamaAla]

That, and "Мы" by Zamyatin. Probably others that I don't know of too.

Added to the reading list. Thanks HB!

[RforRevolution]

The day of the qr code is past: http://gizmodo.com/#!5787427/qr-codes-goodbye-and-good-riddance

[acptulsa]

The day of the qr code is past:

After being amazed that some people are so distressed by their own privacy, that was my second thought. You're better off wearing the name of the woman who has despised your guts for the last fifty years than a tat that works technology half a century obsolete.

[eduardo89]

I hate tattoos, but that's on a whole new level of ugly!

[Anti Federalist]

///

[NiceGoing]

Couple of phrases come to mind:

trial balloon
camel's nose under the tent

-------
Wonder Who (gee,who knows :p:p) financed this nifty little enterprise....have to put my thinking cap on, hmmmm..

[brandon]

It's voluntary. Stupid, but voluntary.

edit: btw did anyone else scan that person's arm?

Maci Clare Peltz?

hah I think it's pretty cool actually. Although I'm not the type to get tattoos.

[Teaser Rate]

Heh heh heh heh...cute.


I would expect you to think so.

Am I missing something? Does the minimal potential for abuse mean that that we should reject otherwise beneficial technological advances?

Maybe we should throw away our smart phones and stop vaccinating our children while we're at it...

[Anti Federalist]

Am I missing something? Does the minimal potential for abuse mean that that we should reject otherwise beneficial technological advances?

Maybe we should throw away our smart phones and stop vaccinating our children while we're at it...

LoL, my children aren't vaccinated and I don't own a smart phone.

Do you know what a TWIC is?

[Teaser Rate]

LoL, my children aren't vaccinated and I don't own a smart phone.

Do you know what a TWIC is?

Do you mean the Transportation Worker Identification Credential? The Wikipedia page looks interesting, but I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion at hand.

Smart phones aren't for everyone but I think you should really consider getting your children vaccinated as they have been proven to significantly reduce their chances of getting sick. (I know you're not going to take my advice, but I'd feel bad if I didn't at least try to get you to change your mind on this issue)

[Anti Federalist]

Do you mean the Transportation Worker Identification Credential? The Wikipedia page looks interesting, but I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion at hand.

Smart phones aren't for everyone but I think you should really consider getting your children vaccinated as they has been proven to significantly reduce their chances of getting sick. (I know you're not going to take my advice, but I'd feel bad if I didn't at least try to get you to change your mind on this issue)

I'm assuming that this technology that you find harmless, you would never support being mandatory would you?

[Teaser Rate]

I'm assuming that this technology that you find harmless, you would never support being mandatory would you?

It depends in what context it is suggested.

[Anti Federalist]

It depends in what context it is suggested.

Oh, OK.

So in the context of vaccinations, you would make them mandatory?

[Teaser Rate]

Oh, OK.

So in the context of vaccinations, you would make them mandatory?

I certainly wouldn't make them mandatory for adults, but as a strong believer of science and medicine I do feel that not vaccinating one's children is a form of child abuse. On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable giving the state that kind of authority over parents.

I guess the short answer to your question is that I don't know, this kind of dilemma is why I started this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?285549-When-should-the-state-step-in-to-protect-children-from-parents-denying-them-medical-care). Maybe I should bump it with the vaccine question, but I might have a hard time making everyone play along with the idea that they are beneficial.

[Anti Federalist]

I certainly wouldn't make them mandatory for adults, but as a strong believer of science and medicine I do feel that not vaccinating one's children is a form of child abuse. On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable giving the state that kind of authority over parents.

I guess the short answer to your question is that I don't know, this kind of dilemma is why I started this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?285549-When-should-the-state-step-in-to-protect-children-from-parents-denying-them-medical-care). Maybe I should bump it with the vaccine question, but I might have a hard time making everyone play along with the idea that they are beneficial.

So let's just run with "I don't know".

Now, leveling a charge of "child abuse" against me, is treading on dangerous ground considering what the response of the state would be. Keep in mind I could level the same emotionally laden charge against someone who does vaccinate, given what I think about them.

Let me tie all this in, and show you where I'm going.

Many people have no problem with using the power of the state to force "social change". Given that the largest public threat right now is obesity and not whooping cough or measles, it's not a reach at all to think that, especially now that the medical establishment has been fully socialized, that what you purchase as food will come under government scrutiny and will be tied in to health records. How? By requiring barcodes tattooed on people, just like what the OP was describing.

Or maybe some other form of technology. That's why I brought up TWIC. I am required to purchase a TWIC in order to work. It is expensive, horribly intrusive, and insulting in that the fees I pay do not go to government in any form, but are instead paid directly to the MIC through Lockheed Martin. Right now TWICE remains a biometric RFID card, however, there are ongoing studies within government to switch to an subcutaneous, implanted RFID chip.

TWIC is, of course, a beta test for a nationwide rollout of similar system for all people.

Now, it becomes very clear how all these systems and databases can be tied in together to create a "pseudo" prison grid that will watch and monitor every single move you make, as well as stop you from purchasing prohibited items, traveling to prohibited areas, accessing prohibited information, saying prohibited things or holding prohibited jobs.

The total surveillance society is already here, that smart phone hanging on people's ass is just as surely and iron ball and chain as is the real thing.

I'm old enough to remember what it was like not to live under complete surveillance every day, and all things considered, I'd happily take that freedom over what we are living in now, or what is coming in the very near future.

Of course it doesn't have to be that way, the technology could be shackled down and prevented from being used in such a manner, if only a enough people would speak out forcefully against it.

Beating around the bush and hesitating to reign this monster in now, will make it too late when it really matters.

[BamaAla]

I certainly wouldn't make them mandatory for adults, but as a strong believer of science and medicine I do feel that not vaccinating one's children is a form of child abuse. On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable giving the state that kind of authority over parents.

I guess the short answer to your question is that I don't know, this kind of dilemma is why I started this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?285549-When-should-the-state-step-in-to-protect-children-from-parents-denying-them-medical-care). Maybe I should bump it with the vaccine question, but I might have a hard time making everyone play along with the idea that they are beneficial.

<------------- was never vaccinated and never got sick. We could go back and forth on herd immunity, but what caught my attention was the bit about child abuse.

I understand people define child abuse in a number of different ways; however, you're going to have a tough time convincing me that I was abused because my parents refused to vaccinate me. On the contrary, I've actually led quite a charmed life to this point.

[Anti Federalist]

///

[DamianTV]

It's voluntary. Stupid, but voluntary.

edit: btw did anyone else scan that person's arm?


That is.
The concern is when it is not.

...

Social Security used to be Voluntary too...

[Teaser Rate]

So let's just run with "I don't know".

Now, leveling a charge of "child abuse" against me, is treading on dangerous ground considering what the response of the state would be. Keep in mind I could level the same emotionally laden charge against someone who does vaccinate, given what I think about them.

Let me tie all this in, and show you where I'm going.

Many people have no problem with using the power of the state to force "social change". Given that the largest public threat right now is obesity and not whooping cough or measles, it's not a reach at all to think that, especially now that the medical establishment has been fully socialized, that what you purchase as food will come under government scrutiny and will be tied in to health records. How? By requiring barcodes tattooed on people, just like what the OP was describing.

Or maybe some other form of technology. That's why I brought up TWIC. I am required to purchase a TWIC in order to work. It is expensive, horribly intrusive, and insulting in that the fees I pay do not go to government in any form, but are instead paid directly to the MIC through Lockheed Martin. Right now TWICE remains a biometric RFID card, however, there are ongoing studies within government to switch to an subcutaneous, implanted RFID chip.

TWIC is, of course, a beta test for a nationwide rollout of similar system for all people.

Now, it becomes very clear how all these systems and databases can be tied in together to create a "pseudo" prison grid that will watch and monitor every single move you make, as well as stop you from purchasing prohibited items, traveling to prohibited areas, accessing prohibited information, saying prohibited things or holding prohibited jobs.

The total surveillance society is already here, that smart phone hanging on people's ass is just as surely and iron ball and chain as is the real thing.

I'm old enough to remember what it was like not to live under complete surveillance every day, and all things considered, I'd happily take that freedom over what we are living in now, or what is coming in the very near future.

Of course it doesn't have to be that way, the technology could be shackled down and prevented from being used in such a manner, if only a enough people would speak out forcefully against it.

Beating around the bush and hesitating to reign this monster in now, will make it too late when it really matters.

It seems to me that you're making the mother of all slippery slope fallacies here. I don't see how more oversight over isolated sectors of the economy is meant to create a control grid to enslave all of us. And besides, who would be behind such a plan? Bureaucrats who care only about their jobs and benefits? Politicians who care about their prospective votes? Maybe large businesses who care about their profits? Such a dystopian vision does not benefit any of them. (Unless, of course, I'm missing some powerful shadowy entity who is trying to take over the world by covert means)



<------------- was never vaccinated and never got sick. We could go back and forth on herd immunity, but what caught my attention was the bit about child abuse.

I understand people define child abuse in a number of different ways; however, you're going to have a tough time convincing me that I was abused because my parents refused to vaccinate me. On the contrary, I've actually led quite a charmed life to this point.

To me, saying that you didn't get sick even though you didn't get vaccinated is like saying that you rode your bike without a helmet and never cracked you skull. Sure, one or ten instances might be fine, but if you took groups of 10,000 or 20,000 kids and put them in pro and anti-vaccination camps, one of them would fare better than the other.

Most parental negligence doesn't lead to disastrous consequences, but that doesn't mean it wasn't abusive behavior.

[BamaAla]

To me, saying that you didn't get sick even though you didn't get vaccinated is like saying that you rode your bike without a helmet and never cracked you skull. Sure, one or ten instances might be fine, but if you took groups of 10,000 or 20,000 kids and put them in pro and anti-vaccination camps, one of them would fare better than the other.

Most parental negligence doesn't lead to disastrous consequences, but that doesn't mean it wasn't abusive behavior.

Your opinion is yours, but I certainly don't agree. In my mind, the result of abuse is injury; absent injury, abuse is not possible.

[Teaser Rate]

Your opinion is yours, but I certainly don't agree. In my mind, the result of abuse is injury; absent injury, abuse is not possible.

So if I leave my gun where my 5yr old kid can get to it, plays with it a while and doesn't happen to shoot anyone, I didn't do anything wrong?

[BamaAla]

So if I leave my gun where my 5yr old kid can get to it, plays with it a while and doesn't happen to shoot anyone, I didn't do anything wrong?

You might have been "wrong," but you weren't abusive.

[pcosmar]

So if I leave my gun where my 5yr old kid can get to it, plays with it a while and doesn't happen to shoot anyone, I didn't do anything wrong?

Why the resort to Red Herring Fallacy?
It is a common tactic of
FAILURE

[Anti Federalist]

It seems to me that you're making the mother of all slippery slope fallacies here. I don't see how more oversight over isolated sectors of the economy is meant to create a control grid to enslave all of us. And besides, who would be behind such a plan? Bureaucrats who care only about their jobs and benefits? Politicians who care about their prospective votes? Maybe large businesses who care about their profits? Such a dystopian vision does not benefit any of them. (Unless, of course, I'm missing some powerful shadowy entity who is trying to take over the world by covert means)

Government power and control has been the mother's milk of tyrants since antiquity. Asking who benefits is like asking a man what he benefits by breathing.

Control of people and populations is what government does.

Anti terrorism and "homeland security" is the premise by which all of this will be accomplished. Threaten the mundanes with scary images of Osama bin Ladin and mushroom clouds and they'll accept and acquiesce to anything you say, including government cameras inside your home. (Already proposed by a Houston police chief to monitor for, among other things, "child abuse")

I'm trying to tell you, for millions of people subject to TWIC, the control grid is already in place, it's no longer a matter of speculation or "what ifs".

Now, if you wish to blow it off until it affects you, well, be my guest, it's your funereal I suppose.

But the world that is being created, this high tech Borg that is supposedly the wave of the future, has nothing at all to do with freedom.


To me, saying that you didn't get sick even though you didn't get vaccinated is like saying that you rode your bike without a helmet and never cracked you skull. Sure, one or ten instances might be fine, but if you took groups of 10,000 or 20,000 kids and put them in pro and anti-vaccination camps, one of them would fare better than the other.

Most parental negligence doesn't lead to disastrous consequences, but that doesn't mean it wasn't abusive behavior.

Again, "negligence" and "abuse" are completely subjective terms, the pejorative value being determined solely by who is wielding them.

I could turn around and say that anybody who knowingly subjects their children to the state indoctrination centers is equally abusive.

And the comparisons have already been done, Amish vs. non Amish children.

[DamianTV]

Its posts like that why you have 4 Rep Bubbles...

[Teaser Rate]

You might have been "wrong," but you weren't abusive.

I disagree, but at this point I think we’re just arguing about semantics. We both agree that parenting which increases the risk to a child’s health is negative, may it be intentional or not. What we might disagree on is where the line of state intervention to address bad parenting should be drawn.


Government power and control has been the mother's milk of tyrants since antiquity. Asking who benefits is like asking a man what he benefits by breathing.

Control of people and populations is what government does.

Anti terrorism and "homeland security" is the premise by which all of this will be accomplished. Threaten the mundanes with scary images of Osama bin Ladin and mushroom clouds and they'll accept and acquiesce to anything you say, including government cameras inside your home. (Already proposed by a Houston police chief to monitor for, among other things, "child abuse")

I'm trying to tell you, for millions of people subject to TWIC, the control grid is already in place, it's no longer a matter of speculation or "what ifs".

Now, if you wish to blow it off until it affects you, well, be my guest, it's your funereal I suppose.

But the world that is being created, this high tech Borg that is supposedly the wave of the future, has nothing at all to do with freedom.



Again, "negligence" and "abuse" are completely subjective terms, the pejorative value being determined solely by who is wielding them.

I could turn around and say that anybody who knowingly subjects their children to the state indoctrination centers is equally abusive.

And the comparisons have already been done, Amish vs. non Amish children.

You seem to assume that the government is a monolithic entity working towards a single goal. Unless you have strong evidence to back this assertion up, I contend that you are wrong; the government is a collection of opposing politicians, bureaucrats, business and political interests, each group vying for their own narrow interests. Their goals are often conflicting and certainly do not converge into a 1984esque control grid.

You also are wrong in the assertion that the world is being created, as if by design. It is not, the world is emerging through thousands of decentralized processes, to quote Adam Ferguson; "Every step and every movement of the multitude, even in what are termed enlightened ages, are made with equal blindness to the future; and nations stumble upon establishments, which are indeed the result of human action, but not the execution of any human design."

[Anti Federalist]

You seem to assume that the government is a monolithic entity working towards a single goal. Unless you have strong evidence to back this assertion up, I contend that you are wrong; the government is a collection of opposing politicians, bureaucrats, business and political interests, each group vying for their own narrow interests. Their goals are often conflicting and certainly do not converge into a 1984esque control grid.

Are you prepared to argue that there are significant policy differences between the Bush administration and the Obama administration?

The integrated, "one world" system of government, commerce and finance is all that is being talked about these days.

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. - Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope

Using your view of government there never would have been a single pyramid constructed, or a minor wall, let alone a "great" one nor would there ever been a Hadrian's wall, or a Coliseum.

To think that petty squabbling of minor government officials and bureaucrats can stand in the way of government cracking down and getting the mundanes in line to accomplish massive works that change the world when it wants to, for good or ill, is ludicrous.

Only a fully informed public, ready to defend their liberty and refusing to be part of these grandiose schemes can stop it.

And you'd dismiss that information as nothing more than paranoid rantings.

[BamaAla]

I disagree, but at this point I think we’re just arguing about semantics. We both agree that parenting which increases the risk to a child’s health is negative, may it be intentional or not. What we might disagree on is where the line of state intervention to address bad parenting should be drawn.

Fair enough; reasonable people may disagree from time to time.

[Anti Federalist]

///

[Teaser Rate]

Are you prepared to argue that there are significant policy differences between the Bush administration and the Obama administration?

The integrated, "one world" system of government, commerce and finance is all that is being talked about these days.

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. - Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope

Using your view of government there never would have been a single pyramid constructed, or a minor wall, let alone a "great" one nor would there ever been a Hadrian's wall, or a Coliseum.

To think that petty squabbling of minor government officials and bureaucrats can stand in the way of government cracking down and getting the mundanes in line to accomplish massive works that change the world when it wants to, for good or ill, is ludicrous.

Only a fully informed public, ready to defend their liberty and refusing to be part of these grandiose schemes can stop it.

And you'd dismiss that information as nothing more than paranoid rantings.

First off, there are significant policy differences between the Bush and Obama administration. For instance, Bush would have never supported Obama’s healthcare legislation and Obama wouldn’t have supported Bush’s attempt to privatize parts of social security. Those are not minor differences.

In places where their policies do converge, it is usually the result of political forces being more powerful than the office of the president. There are many legal, financial, geopolitical, etc. constrains on any President’s agenda, even if we had gotten President Paul (doesn’t that sound nice btw?) into office in 2008, I doubt things would have changed as much as we’d like to believe. The institutions behind presidential power are usually more powerful than the president himself; however this does not mean that they work in unison. In fact, if you were to look at the process through which most policies are created, you’d see how often conflicting interests are fighting over their own piece of the pie.

On the financial integration note, I think you’re connecting ends which don't meet once again. There are a lot of benefits to having more standardized regulations and measurement systems given the inter-connectedness of the world economy. For instance, a unified accounting standard would save billions and it wouldn't mean that anyone would lose any liberties over it and it certainly wouldn’t mean that a single body of civil or criminal law would have to follow suit.

Lastly, I don’t understand what you mean when you say government, you seem to believe that both Bush and Obama are puppets, so may I ask you whose orders do you believe that they are following ?