NBC: Your Children Will Definitely Be Microchipped

NBC: Your Children Will Definitely Be Microchipped

“People should be aware that testing is being done right now. The military is not only testing this out, but already utilizes its properties. It’s not a matter of if it will happen, but when."

Posted on May 25, 2016 by Baxter Dmitry inNews, US // 0 Comments

 

NBC News has continued its attempt to normalize the idea of microchips for humans, airing a report that claims children will be microchipped ‘sooner rather than later’ and that Americans will accept this because it will make their children ‘safer.’

The public will accept microchips as easily as they accepted barcodes on consumer items, the report says.

Mother of three Steffany Rodroguez-Neely talks about how she briefly lost her daughter after she hid behind a rack of clothes in a department store – “Every parent’s nightmare when you can’t find your child.”

“If it’ll save my kid, there’s no stuff that’s too extreme,” says Rodroguez-Neely. “Micro-chipping would be an extra layer of protection, if something bad does happen.”

Rodroguez-Neely says that members of the local Tampa Bay Moms Group, people like Kerri Levey, are wary about implanting a microchip into their children.

Trending Now

Weirdest Trick Erases Yellow Teeth Stains in 3 Minutes

Pearl-e-Whites

Proof Obama Carries Mark Of The Beast

Blackout USA

New Rule In Everett, WA

Improve Insurance

This 'Genius Drug' Unlocks 92% of Brain Potential

Healthy Start To Life

True Christians From WA Deserve To See This

Blackout USA

17 Celebs Who Died & You Didn't Know

TonsOfBuzz

25 Deceased Celebrities Whose Shocking Final...

LifeStylePassion

25 Transgender Celebrities We Have Come to Admire

The Buzz Tube

Rare Historical Photos Never Released To The Public

VeryBro

Glimpse Into Our Amazing Past With These...

VeryBro

Sponsored by Revcontent

“You’re putting a battery in your kid, you’re putting a chip in your kid. And, where does it stop,” asks Levey. “Where? It’s going too far. This is a child we’re talking about.”

“If a small chip the size of a grain of rice could have prevented a tragedy, I think most parents would have said, I think I would have done it,” responds Rodroguez-Neely.

‘Those who give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’Benjamin Franklin.

Nobody reminds Rodroguez-Neely that tracking devices already exist that do not need to be implanted into the body. Watches, cell phones, etc, are all already used by parents for this purpose.

And wouldn’t these chips be more useful to predators (individual and organised) than those who want to protect the children?

But NBC’s propaganda piece, aimed at normalizing the idea of microchips, went even further.

Electronics expert Stuart Lipoff said that microchipping children is “safe and inevitable.”

“People should be aware that testing is being done right now. The military is not only testing this out, but already utilizes its properties. It’s not a matter of if it will happen, but when.”

Branding human cattle

Lipoff also told NBC that people shouldn’t be concerned about “big brother” tracking their children – this technology will only be used for “safety and convenience,” he says – and that the technology is nothing more than an upgrade on traditional cattle branding, and barcodes on consumer items.

“When barcodes first came out in the late 1960s, people were appalled. They were wary of them and did not understand the concept. Today, it is so commonplace, we don’t even notice it. A microchip would work much in the same way,” he said, adding that it will “definitely happen.”

The only catch is that you won’t know exactly what is being put into your child’s body. You also won’t know who will have access to the data. If history repeats, it will go from being technology adopted for its ‘convenience and safety’ and then overnight will become mandatory for you and your family – or else.

AboutLatest Posts

drug-addiction-the-complex-truth/

http://mindhacks.com/2013/09/13/drug-addiction-the-complex-truth/

truth

We’re told studies have proven that drugs like heroin and cocaine instantly hook a user. But it isn’t that simple – little-known experiments over 30 years ago tell a very different tale.

Drugs are scary. The words “heroin” and “cocaine” make people flinch. It’s not just the associations with crime and harmful health effects, but also the notion that these substances can undermine the identities of those who take them. One try, we’re told, is enough to get us hooked. This, it would seem, is confirmed by animal experiments.

Many studies have shown rats and monkeys will neglect food and drink in favour of pressing levers to obtain morphine (the lab form of heroin). With the right experimental set up, some rats will self-administer drugs until they die. At first glance it looks like a simple case of the laboratory animals losing control of their actions to the drugs they need. It’s easy to see in this a frightening scientific fable about the power of these drugs to rob us of our free will.

But there is more to the real scientific story, even if it isn’t widely talked about. The results of a set of little-known experiments carried out more than 30 years ago paint a very different picture, and illustrate how easy it is for neuroscience to be twisted to pander to popular anxieties. The vital missing evidence is a series of studies carried out in the late 1970s in what has become known as “Rat Park”. Canadian psychologist Bruce Alexander, at the Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, suspected that the preference of rats to morphine over water in previous experiments might be affected by their housing conditions.

To test his hypothesis he built an enclosure measuring 95 square feet (8.8 square metres) for a colony of rats of both sexes. Not only was this around 200 times the area of standard rodent cages, but Rat Park had decorated walls, running wheels and nesting areas. Inhabitants had access to a plentiful supply of food, perhaps most importantly the rats lived in it together.

Rats are smart, social creatures. Living in a small cage on their own is a form of sensory deprivation. Rat Park was what neuroscientists would call an enriched environment, or – if you prefer to look at it this way – a non-deprived one. In Alexander’s tests, rats reared in cages drank as much as 20 times more morphine than those brought up in Rat Park. 

Inhabitants of Rat Park could be induced to drink more of the morphine if it was mixed with sugar, but a control experiment suggested that this was because they liked the sugar, rather than because the sugar allowed them to ignore the bitter taste of the morphine long enough to get addicted. When naloxone, which blocks the effects of morphine, was added to the morphine-sugar mix, the rats’ consumption didn’t drop. In fact, their consumption increased, suggesting they were actively trying to avoid the effects of morphine, but would put up with it in order to get sugar.

‘Woefully incomplete’

The results are catastrophic for the simplistic idea that one use of a drug inevitably hooks the user by rewiring their brain. When Alexander’s rats were given something better to do than sit in a bare cage they turned their noses up at morphine because they preferred playing with their friends and exploring their surroundings to getting high.

Further support for his emphasis on living conditions came from another set of tests his team carried out in which rats brought up in ordinary cages were forced to consume morphine for 57 days in a row. If anything should create the conditions for chemical rewiring of their brains, this should be it. But once these rats were moved to Rat Park they chose water over morphine when given the choice, although they did exhibit some minor withdrawal symptoms.

You can read more about Rat Park in the original scientific report. A good summary is in this comic by Stuart McMillen. The results aren’t widely cited in the scientific literature, and the studies were discontinued after a few years because they couldn’t attract funding. There have been criticisms of the study’s design and the few attempts that have been made to replicate the results have been mixed.

Nonetheless the research does demonstrate that the standard “exposure model” of addiction is woefully incomplete. It takes far more than the simple experience of a drug – even drugs as powerful as cocaine and heroin – to make you an addict. The alternatives you have to drug use, which will be influenced by your social and physical environment, play important roles as well as the brute pleasure delivered via the chemical assault on your reward circuits.

For a psychologist like me it suggests that even addictions can be thought of using the same theories we use to think about other choices, there isn’t a special exception for drug-related choices. Rat Park also suggests that when stories about the effects of drugs on the brain are promoted to the neglect of the discussion of the personal and social contexts of addiction, science is servicing our collective anxieties rather than informing us.

This is my BBC Future article from tuesday. The original is here. TheFoddy article I link to in the last paragraph is great, read that. As isStuart’s comic.

Cops can use fake Facebook accounts to lure suspects, says judge

by David Goldman   @DavidGoldmanCNNDecember 24, 2014: 11:01 AM ET

Fake Facebook accounts are a legal way to search through a suspect's social media profile, a court rules.

If you're a criminal, be careful who you friend on Facebook.

A federal judge ruled last week that law enforcement can create fake social network profiles in order to search through a suspect's account. Cops can lure suspects into "friending" them and then use the content of their Facebook (FB, Tech30), Instagram or other social media accounts against them in court.

United States District Judge William Martini denied a defendant's motion to suppress evidence collected from his Instagram profile after he connected with an undercover account created by police officers.

The defendant Daniel Gatson argued that the police had no probable cause to search through his Instagram account. But Judge Martini argued that since Gatson accepted the request to become friends with the police officers, he enabled law enforcement to view photos and other information that he posted to his Instagram account.

As a result, the police did not need a search warrant. The sharing was consensual, the judge ruled.

Related: Facebook tells DEA: Stop impersonating users

Law enforcement has increasingly made use of the fake accounts tactic over the past year, angering social media companies, including Facebook and its Instagram subsidiary. Facebook has said it is "deeply troubled" that its customers consent to a legal search by friending fake accounts.

In October, Facebook sent a letter to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration demanding that agents stop impersonating users on the social network.

"The DEA's deceptive actions... threaten the integrity of our community," Facebook chief security officer Joe Sullivan wrote to DEA head Michele Leonhart. "Using Facebook to impersonate others abuses that trust and makes people feel less safe and secure when using our service."

CNNMoney (New York)First published December 24, 2014: 11:01 AM ET