Should parents be allowed to Microchip their kids?

[cubby]

Right they make the decision, so if they want to chip their child they should be willing to get a chip themselves, otherwise no.

Again, no. If you have more reasoning for this, fine. But so far all you do is repeat your baseless argument. I can think of 100 things, off the top of my head, that are good for kids but not for adults - or in which the child shouldn't have a choice in the matter.

Are you going to explain yourself or should we just ignore your repeated ridiculousness?

[Noradin]

Yeah, if it's just a chip that pings, then it's nothing more than a locator. And I see little harm in a child having such a thing.

Well, it must sent a public key of some sort, otherwise how would you know who is allowed to know where a specific one is.
Encrypting it and having some central place deal with distribution just makes that place a target.
If you want to go the way of more sophiscated encryption then you most certainly will need to push uptates to the implants--which would open the next can of worms.

Also, these chips are essentially another incentive to deal phyical harm to the body to disable them.
Do we really need more reasons so hurt kids?
Do we need to give teens another reason to intentionally try and inflict wounds on their body?
In the case of teens I cannot even bring myself to call it a stupid reason, it is certainly better than many other reasons teens have decided to risk their life for.
I certainly would be tempted to risk it myself even as an adult if I had no other chice tobe rid of it, and I would resent those who implanted it forever.

[lewdest]

It's funny because parents can use hormone blockers on children and give them sex reassignment surgery, but god forbid a parent wants to have a safety net in case their child goes missing.

[Hilhen7]

When they become consenting adults. Then then choose to keep it or not.

Pay attention.

That's not what I asked him. He was talking about tracing his daughter with a phone and being a helicopter parent.

[Deleted]

Sure why not?

[Hilhen7]

It's funny because parents can use hormone blockers on children and give them sex reassignment surgery, but god forbid a parent wants to have a safety net in case their child goes missing.

Who said we agree with those things? Just because something is legal doesn't mean everyone agrees that it should be done.

[Shadowferal]

Right they make the decision, so if they want to chip their child they should be willing to get a chip themselves, otherwise no.

Oh, so you think the law should be amended to include parents.

[cubby]

Who said we agree with those things? Just because something is legal doesn't mean everyone agrees that it should be done.

Exactly. If only there were a mechanism for making choices regarding children. Who could we rely on to do that? Hmmmmm . . . .

Let's assume a few things, and then a question.

Assume it's removable, at will.
Assume the child won't know about it.
Assume no ill effects from the implant (or removal).

Why would it then be wrong?

[Raone]

Because . . . reasons? Again, does the 2-year-old sign the same consent form? Your emotion is preventing you from making logical arguments, and now you're just diving into a Freshman year philosophy discussion. Which is next to pointless.

Please read before making emotion arguments, I expressed zero emotion. I said if you want to do it your child then feel free, the parent is in full control and puts in the child in all his/her children if they are willing to get the chip themselves, why is it so bad if a adult gets it with the child? A child may need to find his/her parent if they get lost. Sometimes parents with multiple children don't know their child is missing for several minutes and that may be more then enough time for the kidnapper to damage the chip.

Would the four year old? We done now with the ridiculous and emotion based arguments. When you have a real argument, let us know.

Stop bringing up emotion lol, its getting sad as that is your only defence when someone disagrees with you. But just dismiss it by using an age where my argument doesn't work completely forgetting there is literally 5-18 years where you need to keep this magical secret, I'm assuming the Santa secret lasts till 18 too? They will find out, I found out from a friend's older brother about playboy at 8 and all I wanted to do was find out more about this picture book. They will find out about the chip by the age of 8-13 and then what.

Not really, you just argued with yourself and the rest of us watched. Thanks?

So just ignore the possible emotional damage you could do a child because reasons, okay. I'm thinking of this very logically and without emotion, we don't know WHAT this will do to a child mental development but if your okay with not knowing then go right ahead chip your children, most likely they will turn out just fine.

Honestly if you want to chip your child up to the age of 10~ I would be okay with it, but after that no. I still would not.

[cubby]

Please read before making emotion arguments, I expressed zero emotion. I said if you want to do it your child then feel free, the parent is in full control and puts in the child in all his/her children if they are willing to get the chip themselves, why is it so bad if a adult gets it with the child? A child may need to find his/her parent if they get lost. Sometimes parents with multiple children don't know their child is missing for several minutes and that may be more then enough time for the kidnapper to damage the chip.

Yes, you did. That statement is pure emotion - you're ranting about what's good for the child is good for the parent, when all reason and logic say otherwise. Unless you're going to actually address the examples you've been provided where that isn't the case. Are you going to do that? Or just keep repeating your emotional, and baseless, mantra.

Stop bringing up emotion lol, its getting sad as that is your only defence when someone disagrees with you.

I'll stop bringing it up when you stop reacting with it. This isn't my fault that you aren't providing logical responses. You've repeated the same "what's good for the child is good for the parent" a half dozen times now, with no response to our multiple examples of why that isn't true.

But just dismiss it by using an age where my argument doesn't work completely forgetting there is literally 5-18 years where you need to keep this magical secret, I'm assuming the Santa secret lasts till 18 too? They will find out, I found out from a friend's older brother about playboy at 8 and all I wanted to do was find out more about this picture book. They will find out about the chip by the age of 8-13 and then what.

First of all, no, they won't automatically find out. Santa is your example? Really? Of course they could find out, but that's not the point. Are you going to explain this to a 2-year-old? Good luck!

You list an age range of when they'll find out? How did you come up with this? What's your data point?

Yes, they could find out. No, it wouldn't be great. Yes, as a parent you could deal with that development, and if it came down to it, remove it. Choices.

So just ignore the possible emotional damage you could do a child because reasons, okay. I'm thinking of this very logically and without emotion, we don't know WHAT this will do to a child mental development but if your okay with not knowing then go right ahead chip your children, most likely they will turn out just fine.

Not ignore, balance.

Honestly if you want to chip your child up to the age of 10~ I would be okay with it, but after that no. I still would not.

Why 10? Why not 11 or 9? I'm sincerely curious. I also respect your choice if you don't choose to do it for your children.

[Noradin]

Yep - that's what I mean. Thanks. All of those are from a constitution written before this was available. So it comes down to, as always, what the court rules them to mean - if I understand German and Swiss law.

I'm assuming that children don't have a lot of consent rights when they are born, even in Europe. So that means it's the parents decision, with some exceptions regarding illegality, of course.

This chip is legal, non-invasive, and only helps without any harm. Parents can consent to surgery, right? Same thing.




You won't find any on this topic - I'm an American lawyer and this issue is not even remotely ripe.




You're assuming things that are not in the article. You lept passed the conversation, made generalizations about the tech that may or may not be correct, and the dismissed the entire premise based off of those assumptions.

Not a good way to argue, in any country.

- - - Updated - - -



No. You're just making shit up now, because there is no logical argument against chipping kids.

Yes... no.
That is what I meant about being careful about ting civil law with experience mostly in common law.
In civil law it does not come down to what the courts rule the way it does in common law.
But if you are a lawyer you are pobably aware of this. You can probably look up the relevant details and even some rulings with much less efford than me.

Regarding consent. You still seem to assume (after being told it is not the case) that if a child is not able to give or refuse consent for something an adult could consent to that in such a case the legal guardians automatically hold the right to decide consent for that matter in their stead. This is not true.
As shown by the example of parents not being able to give consent for their toddler to have sex with someone.

You have not demonstrated that the chip "only helps without harm".

--

So you as a lawyer are here to get layman opinions on the matter for later consideration?

--

I raised a possible objection based on basic physical and technological principles.
I have studied and work in physics and informatics, and have served in the militray in a capacity that involved radio-telecommunication and the security and protection thereof.

Your ad hominem attack and appeal to authority (as a lawyer on technological matters) is as blatant as it is misguided.
Are you being paid money to promote these chips? Otherwise why the apparent investment in eclaring them harmless and generally helpful?

[Hilhen7]

Exactly. If only there were a mechanism for making choices regarding children. Who could we rely on to do that? Hmmmmm . . . .

Let's assume a few things, and then a question.

Assume it's removable, at will.
Assume the child won't know about it.
Assume no ill effects from the implant (or removal).

Why would it then be wrong?

Provided that the data is 100% secure and can't be hacked and kidnappers don't know about the device?

The main issue I see is trust.

Aren't we supposed to teach the children about trust? First you withhold the truth until their 18, and then when it's time for it to be removed they learn that you have been holding this secret for 18 years. That's going to cause some serious trust issues.

[Minikin]

It's a more recent debate, but I have heard it picking up steam a little bit, mostly because I work in security, one of the constant concerns especially in public settings is about the safety of children. If a child is ever lost or kidnapped it could be a helpful tool.

you have been watching black mirror havent you?

on topic: gonna go with No. policing and enforcing does not make good, decent or innovative individuals, in my opinion. Maybe when they are kids though, like the first few months of them getting their first driving licsense, just in case nothing terrible happens or they dont do something stupid in euphoria and harm others. but besides that...i dunno i cant see it being beneficial.

[Noradin]

No, it's not "incredible likely". You don't even know what the tech is, or how it works.

We do not need to know the details, if you have some exception to fundamental physical law you should publish them in a relevant paper instead instead and get your Nobel price.

[Deleted]

Yeah, they should.

[Shadowferal]

If parents want to chip their children then it's fine with me.
However if the government want to chip everyone, then that would certainly be a problem.

[Minikin]

There was a black mirror episode about it .go check it and find your answer

i mentioned the same thing. mind you though, i think the filter mode in that thing and that mother stress issues was more of a problem than the camera in that kids head.

[Noradin]

You making an addition that isn't there. Parents make the decisions...period.
If they want a chip for their child, fine.
The adult doesn't want one, then that's fine too.

There is something missing after "decisions" and it is not "period".
Parents are not free to make every decision for their child, they are not even free to make every decision for their child that they could make for themselves.
This is immideately obvious. Adults can consent to sex. Toddlers cannot. Their parents cannot give consent for sex with their toddler in any civilized country.

[Shadowferal]

There is something missing after "decisions" and it is not "period". Parents are not free to make every decision for their child, they are not even free to make every decision for their child that they could make for themselves. This is immideately obvious. Adults can consent to sex. Toddlers cannot. Their parents cannot give consent for sex with their toddler in any civilized country.

You're adding shitty context that was never there.
Child safety is ever been foremost...stop trying to score points over an argument that doesn't exist.

[Mistame]

So many pages of stupid in this thread.

OP: No, just no.

Kids don't have rights.

False.

Invasion of privacy.

More importantly, bodily autonomy.

Just like circumcision, or choosing their religion for them.

Mutilation and indoctrination. Crazy stuff. :/

They don't earn autonomy until they are 18 at which point they can remove it and move the hell out of my house. Until then I'm still responsible for their actions

A child gains basic human rights at birth. This includes bodily autonomy. While this doesn't mean that they have the "right" to get tattoos at 5, it does protect them from unnecessary bodily harm. You can't just say that you wanted a girl and have a doctor cut off your little boy's bits. With the exception ensuring their well-being (vaccines, etc), a child absolutely has the right to not be violated.