Because it would put you 90% of the way to a totalitarian state, that’s why not. You may be happy with your government right now, but give them the power to monitor every thing you do and you’ll regret it sooner or later. It’ll also not stop crime in any meaningful way (you can still pay people in cocaine), while putting the majority of law-abiding citizens under complete surveillance. And please don’t say “I’ve got nothing to hide” - you might not now, but I seriously doubt even that.
I haven’t read the thread yet, so if the point has already been made, consider this another vote against the idea.
As an expert in computer forensics and fraud investigation (according to my business card at least) for one of the largest professional services firms in the world, I think I am qualified to answer the OPs question.
First of all, he has a slight case of the “justs”. As in “why don’t they just do this and that.” The simple answer, civil liberty concerns aside, it’s not all that feasible to implant 300 million people with chips. Then you need to collect all the data from those chips. Finally you need to sort through it to find instances of fraud and corruption. And what about foreign visitors who don’t have chips or people who are allergic to them?
Also, the privacy concerns are a bit overblown. There is no such thing as privacy. All your emails and instant messages reside on servers somewhere. You credit card purchases and bank transactions all reside in a database somewhere. As does any Metrocard, EZPass, SmartPass (or whatever your local equivalent) and the security badge to your office. Your phone can be tracked by its GPS device or by the cell towers (although not as accurately). CCTV cameras record your movements in public spaces. Not to mention a lot of people just freely broadcast their entire lives on Facebook, MySpace and YouTube. Anyone with enough authority and resources can piece together a pretty accurate portrait of your week if they wanted to.
The biggest reason is convenience. Sometimes you just want to conduct a legitimate business transaction without the need of some sort of scanner and connectivity to a network or satellite. Although convenience may end up becoming a reason to get one.
You are missing the point. The point is simply that people make a big deal about their perceived “privacy” without realizing how much information about them is already out there and more or less readily available.
Here is the problem with having all this information readily available and it has little to do with neo-facist totalitarian states. The issue is that based on what to you might seem like innocuous behavior might actually raise a red flag in some database search engine at the government, law enforcement agencies, corporations or banks. This systems might then determine you have a high probability of being a criminal threat, uninsurable, a high financial risk or unemployable. I for one would not want to live in a world where I might not be able to find a job because some computer determined a statistical correlation between how much laundry detergant I buy and whether I will be a high performer at work.
That really is it, isn’t it? I’ve tried to make this point less eloquently to people on many occasions. When people get up in arms about ‘fascism, fascism’, I try to explain to them how they are ruled more by systems analysis than they are by a cult of personality fascist dictator.
What is a more realistic threat to your personal freedom? Jack Bauer busting into your house and torturing you with a lamp cord and his lame-ass Palm Treo smartphone? Or Chloe Obrien and her data mining software assessing you as potential enemy of the state because your interests and behaviors fit a certain profile?
I would, because I know for a fact that I wouldn’t be caught dead buying their charcoal water. The problem with putting a touch, however light, on enough people is that you eventually run into someone who’s paying attention. (For example, the “Cuckoo’s Egg” case began with an attempt to track down a 75-cent discrepancy.)
