HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Teenager's Faith At Odds ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:00 AM

Teenager's Faith At Odds With Locator Tags In School IDs

Source: NPR

Teenager's Faith At Odds With Locator Tags In School IDs
by Wade Goodwyn
December 17, 2012 3:33 AM

A federal court in Texas on Monday will take up the case of a high-school student who refuses to wear her location-tracking school ID.

The 15-year-old sophomore says the ID badge, which has an embedded radio frequency identification tag, is a violation of her rights. The student, Andrea Hernandez, believes the ID is "the mark of the beast" from the Book of Revelation.

Steven Hernandez says his daughter was alarmed this summer when John Jay High School in San Antonio informed families that new IDs would include the chips, which would help the school know electronically if the student was on campus.

"And she says, 'Daddy, I'm not going to do this.' And I said, 'Why aren't you going to do this, honey?' She says, 'Dad, that's exactly what it talks about in the Book of Revelation that you were teaching us about taking the mark of the beast. This is the exact same thing,' " Hernandez says.


Read more: http://www.npr.org/2012/12/17/167277175/teenagers-faith-at-odds-with-locator-tags-in-school-ids









Rev. John Hagee, Andrea Hernandez' minister

81 replies, 6361 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 81 replies Author Time Post
Reply Teenager's Faith At Odds With Locator Tags In School IDs (Original post)
Judi Lynn Dec 2012 OP
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #1
truthisfreedom Dec 2012 #2
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #23
lbrtbell Dec 2012 #70
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #72
ZM90 Dec 2012 #3
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #24
atreides1 Dec 2012 #76
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #79
ehrnst Dec 2012 #60
RandiFan1290 Dec 2012 #4
ReRe Dec 2012 #5
IDemo Dec 2012 #6
Trillo Dec 2012 #16
IDemo Dec 2012 #25
Trillo Dec 2012 #35
IDemo Dec 2012 #54
Trillo Dec 2012 #80
lbrtbell Dec 2012 #71
mwb970 Dec 2012 #7
rbixby Dec 2012 #45
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #64
rbixby Dec 2012 #75
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #73
Celebration Dec 2012 #8
rhiannon55 Dec 2012 #9
Celebration Dec 2012 #18
Paulie Dec 2012 #49
Celebration Dec 2012 #52
Paulie Dec 2012 #55
Celebration Dec 2012 #57
Paulie Dec 2012 #62
mwooldri Dec 2012 #11
Celebration Dec 2012 #19
IDemo Dec 2012 #20
Celebration Dec 2012 #21
IDemo Dec 2012 #27
Tempest Dec 2012 #30
JustABozoOnThisBus Dec 2012 #13
Celebration Dec 2012 #17
JustABozoOnThisBus Dec 2012 #22
Tempest Dec 2012 #33
Celebration Dec 2012 #40
Tempest Dec 2012 #42
Celebration Dec 2012 #44
Tempest Dec 2012 #53
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #36
Tempest Dec 2012 #37
Celebration Dec 2012 #38
Tempest Dec 2012 #32
Celebration Dec 2012 #39
Tempest Dec 2012 #41
happyslug Dec 2012 #51
Tempest Dec 2012 #58
happyslug Dec 2012 #61
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #74
on point Dec 2012 #10
mwooldri Dec 2012 #12
hatrack Dec 2012 #14
Tempest Dec 2012 #29
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #50
Celebration Dec 2012 #46
tammywammy Dec 2012 #56
cosmicone Dec 2012 #15
Celebration Dec 2012 #26
Tempest Dec 2012 #28
Celebration Dec 2012 #48
Xithras Dec 2012 #31
Tempest Dec 2012 #34
Celebration Dec 2012 #43
Xithras Dec 2012 #69
DallasNE Dec 2012 #47
Igel Dec 2012 #66
Cleita Dec 2012 #59
Paulie Dec 2012 #63
Cleita Dec 2012 #67
Great Caesars Ghost Dec 2012 #65
LeftInTX Dec 2012 #68
bowens43 Dec 2012 #77
limpyhobbler Dec 2012 #78
Fearless Dec 2012 #81

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:05 AM

1. I will be surprised if there is not wide spread monkey wrenching of these systems

Its just too easy and seem like the kind of think many in HS would do, regardless of religious background

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:32 AM

2. Should be opt-out.

I mean, who cares if her parents can be reassured that she's ok when a sniper appears on campus?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truthisfreedom (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:59 AM

23. She was offered an opt-out. But she still refused the ID without the chip.

Wanted to use her old ID. This is not a reasonable person. She and her parents need to find a new school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:19 PM

70. No school has the right to do this

Though I don't agree with her religious beliefs, I feel this is a horrible invasion of privacy. Teens shouldn't be treated like criminals, being forced to wear tracking devices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lbrtbell (Reply #70)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:50 AM

72. Schools need to know where students are during school hours.

For their own safety if nothing else. If there is an emergency it is imperative that the school administration be able to find every student quickly.

And it is not anything like a criminal tracking device. It can easily be taken off and put on a counter or it can be put into a foil sleeve which blocks the chip.

There is no expectation of privacy regarding the location of a person in any public building, let alone a school where the administration is responsible for the students in the building. Sorry, there just isn't.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:55 AM

3. This is not on religious grounds but yeah if my HS had done this when I was in HS I would be against

it on privacy grounds. I would have hated the idea of being tracked too mainly because this can easily be abused and really would you want someone to know where you are at all times? I don't think anyone here would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZM90 (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:06 AM

24. If it is my daughter at school? Yes, I want them to know where she is at all times.

The detectors/chips have a limited range so following her all over town is not really an issue. For that you would need to track her cell phone.

And you can always stick the ID in a foil sleeve when you go off campus, just as you can put a picture ID in your wallet or purse out of the way of prying eyes. Non issue, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:58 PM

76. Good for you.

You tag your daughter then...just because it's something that seems to thrill you to no end...doesn't mean it needs to be done to someone else.

Do you think the Patriot Act is a good law, too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #76)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:12 PM

79. Wow. Stereotype much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZM90 (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:18 PM

60. A closed campus is one where a student's wherabouts are known at all times

And if they leave campus, and they are seen by a teacher, or a teacher is notified electronically, I don't see that there's a real difference.

Searching lockers is completely different - I believe that schools can be made to show reason for searching a student's personal possessions, and a lock can be placed on a locker until such time as reason for the search is documented (suspected firearm, controlled substances, stolen property, etc)

But if the school is indeed responsible for a student during those hours, this is something that assists them in monitoriing location, and could be helpful in light of school staffing cuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:10 AM

4. But the mark of the beast in her cellphone is super cool guyz!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:19 AM

5. You HAVE GOT TO be kidding!

Old Rev Hagee. That poor girl. You talk about someone not having a chance in this world? That kind of religion is a cross between brainwashing & neglect. Just wait until she learns that she was lied to for her entire childhood. Betrayal is a bitch. NPR????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:53 AM

6. I and virtually every employee at high tech campuses have had these for years

A swipe of the badge signals the main door to permit your entrance; labs or buildings inside allow entrance if the employee has clearance. There are no flying demons surrounding the scanners. These might have actually provided one level of security in Newtown.

At least they didn't refer to these as "GPS" cards for once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:48 AM

16. As an employee, it's your choice. You're always free to tell your boss or bosses you quit.

As an employee, you are paid for your time.

As a student, it's do what you're told or be punished. We all know that punishment can involve some rather "old testament" shit like being beaten with batons, spanked in the principals, or banishment and expulsion. There is no pay for the student.

I believe that's a pretty large difference, in spite of the relatively equal danger of being shot by a mass murderer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trillo (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:10 AM

25. The pay for the student is an education

What essential difference is there between this technology and saying "here!" during roll call? Both educators and employers have a reasonable expectation that their students or workers will show up. And both have reason not to want people showing up who don't belong, whether that's industrial espionage, child abduction or shootings.

I don't consider it in the least an infringement on my rights when I badge in each morning. If school punishments for absences or any other offenses are too extreme, that's a separate issue entirely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:06 PM

35. It seems her argument boils down to a matter of her choice, as does yours as your choice.

Re: "pay for the student is an education" -- We all know that for most of the HS students, they will qualify for a minimum wage job, if they can find one. So, the only rationale behind that "education" of which you speak, is education for education's sake.

There is only a practical monetary benefit for a few of the students, those that get on honor rolls, those who do very well, these kids may go on to college. If they do well there, they may qualify for, in this economy, a $10 an hour job, unless they go into a select few 'high-paying' professions like medicine or law. In the case of lawyers, I've had at least one tell me back in the 1980s or 90s (during a reasonably good economy) that they commonly made $10-13 per hour, unless they became a "partner" of a firm. So, from a practical standpoint of economic survival, a series of filters that are far from guaranteed will be applied in these students' futures. With each filter applied, only a percentage goes on to the next step. This could be considered a type of exponential function when viewed from the perspective of 100% of kids. Maybe only 1% end up with fair lifetime compensation for all their prior educational work demanded.

The two above paragraphs, IMO, call into question the essential "reasonableness" of which you write. Our legal system has deemed compulsory education, but not compulsory careers. From the POV of the student, all the demands made by school administration may not be deemed as reasonable. If there were a guaranteed income after jumping through all these hoops for some 1-2+ decades of life, then the deal changes and maybe it would be reasonable for 100% of students.

Regarding Roll Call vs RFID badge, perhaps Ms. Hernandez considers it a matter of personal privacy, though that is speculation on my part. Roll Call happens once, and it's up to her to report it. With the badge, it is reporting her location at times that she is unaware of.

Here's a little more speculation: The use of "mark of the beast" may be considered a metaphor for some kind of perceived tyranny. Each person either accepts outside control, or they do not, in each case of such control. This goes back to reasonableness. It seems Ms. Hernandez seems to feel the RFID badge is an unreasonable requirement given the benefits she has received, is receiving currently, or has expectation of receiving in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trillo (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:21 PM

54. Different issues

You've taken a completely separate tangent here. I'm not going to argue that it has become very difficult in today's world to achieve economic success, but most agree that doing so without the foundation of a HS diploma is all but impossible. If a student or parent deems the cost/benefit of high school graduation not worth the stress from privacy concerns or other reasons, I guess any efforts to force attendance becomes problematic for them.

I am simply stating that if a student and their parents have agreed to remain in school for whatever reason, the rules (and the law, in most places) require them to show up when expected.

I'm not comfortable with the level of inspection that the NSA, FBI, Homeland Security and local police have been able to grab over the past decade. But this is not in the same ballpark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Reply #54)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:20 AM

80. You've made a false equivalence, "show up when expected" does not equal "wear an RFID badge".

Regarding what you have deemed a "completely separate tangent", I'm not the only one who takes a more wholistic approach. Professor Diane Reay (PDF) has even pointed out that the income disparity between the rich and the poor, the incomes of people who are no longer in school, affects education.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:29 PM

71. Education? At school? HAHAHAHAHA!

That's a good one. Kids aren't taught anything they need in real life. In all my post-school years, I've never once needed to use algebra and trig, or dissect a worm, or any of the other stupid things we learned in school.

And now that uniforms are coming back, kids aren't even learning how to conform to a proper dress code. They show up for job interviews in T-shirts and jeans, because they don't even know how to dress properly.

Kids aren't being "paid" with an education. They're being robbed of an education, and teachers are helpless to stop it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:57 AM

7. But WHY does she believe the ID is "the mark of the beast"?

I'm thinking it's because her parents have terrified her with Bible readings. The indoctrination starts at birth with these people and leads to the continuous fear and outrage we see from today's fundamentalist "Christians".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwb970 (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:53 PM

45. Interesting question

I know that with UPC codes, people claimed they were the number of the beast because each UPC contains 3 check digits to make sure that the code is read properly. The check digit is the number 6 encoded into it, so in essence, each barcode contains a '666'. Not sure about the rfid tags though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbixby (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:02 PM

64. you don't understand the concept "check digit" if you think every check digit is 6

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #64)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:54 PM

75. That's just what I heard some religious nut say about it

I should check snopes before I open my yap I guess

http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/barcode.asp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwb970 (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:55 AM

73. Because she has been taught this by bible thumpers

who like to weave fantastic real scenarios out of allegorical literature. I have been there. It is kind of fun stuff as literature but not fun and very terrifying when you are 12 and it is taught as fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:04 AM

8. I'm not sure these things are safe

Dogs that get implanted with trackers often get tumors near where they are implanted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:39 AM

9. This is not an implant

It's a school ID with a chip in it. She refuses to carry or wear it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhiannon55 (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:13 AM

18. I know it isn't an implant

But it is close to the body, on a necklace type thing. I don't think there have been tests done showing they are safe. These are kids!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:11 PM

49. Similar chips are in your passport.

These are radio frequency tags not radiological.

Like AM, FM, cell phones. But even lower power likely passive devices (else they would need recharging)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paulie (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:15 PM

52. I have a passport

But I don't wear it around my neck, and it is only pinged when I travel out of the country.

Plus having a passport, cell phone, etc. is not a requirement to go to school. That is where I have the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #52)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:21 PM

55. They are using it for attendance.

Kid walks in the school just like at the airport. There is no safety issue as there is no ionizing radiation involved.

In this case the child was given the option to opt out AND DECLINED.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paulie (Reply #55)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:41 PM

57. declined to opt out?

If that is the case, I am sure she will lose this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:59 PM

62. It's in the article

When Whitehead says the school should opt out, he means the school should let Andrea Hernandez opt out of having to carry the locator chip. That's something the district has offered as long as Hernandez still wears the new ID badge with no chip inside. But Andrea doesn't want to do that either. She wants to wear her old school ID.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:36 AM

11. They're safe because they don't emit any electromagnetic radiation.

The chips react when certain electromagnetic radiation forces are nearby - causing a resonance. Plus these chips are not embedded in a living being. Besides they're all around us - Londoners use an Oyster Card, Hong Kong residents use an Octopus Card, many banks issue these kind of cards where one can "tap and go".

Besides with this student - I'm not sure if it the case at that school but in the school system my son goes to (still Elementary school tho) each student is required to have a binder for work, for recording homework assignments, etc. One of the first tasks is to decorate that binder with information about its owner, the class they're in, etc. The RFID chip is easily embedded into something like cardboard. Why not use that as a placeholder for the chip, and the chip readers would be able to see where that students' binder was? (No reference to Mr. Romneys' "binders of women" statement is intended here).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwooldri (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:15 AM

19. I think they require the chip to be around the neck

Placing the chip very close to the thymus, which is really susceptible to damage. I wouldn't want my kid wearing one of these without some long term testing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:27 AM

20. The chip is contained within an inert plastic card

There is no direct skin contact possible. Hundreds of thousands have worn similar devices for many years. I'm sure if there were evidence that they presented a health hazard, the alarm would have been sounded before now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:56 AM

21. I'm not sure at all

Cancers can take decades to develop. I don't think anyone has looked at any statistics of kids wearing these things. Sure they are in plastic, but they still resonate. If they were inert, they wouldn't work.

I'm not saying they are dangerous. But I do feel that there is a risk that they are. For sure I wouldn't want to live near a cell phone tower.

Also I'm not sure of the utility of these things for kids anyway. They could just take them off if they wanted to. I really don't get it..............at all.

I would not want my kid wearing one of these.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:54 AM

27. By "inert", I was referring to the chemical aspect

The radiative energy in an RFID system originates from the badge reader. The RFID circuitry on the card itself is mainly a very crude antenna that takes this energy, activates the chip and reflects a simple number or code to identify the wearer. You're getting much greater EMF from a number of other sources around you during the course of a day, cell phones for instance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:01 PM

30. Nonsense

It gives off such a low frequency that it would never interfere with the human body.

And I read your post about wearing one over a long period of time.

I've carried one every day for more than 15 years. No cancer. No cancer in any of my co-workers who have been wearing them for much longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:01 AM

13. That's interesting ... do you have a link?

I didn't know the rfid implants were dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Celebration (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:58 AM

22. Yikes! Thanks

Scary stuff, especially that they "don't know" if this applies to humans.

Though we're somewhat related to dogs. (Mammals, Placentals) They're not talking about cancers in fish, for example.

I've seen articles stating it's a "good idea" to plant these in some seniors, esp alzheimers sufferers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:03 PM

33. Almost 20 year old studies

Yeah, technology hasn't changed since then.

Stop with the theatrics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:40 PM

40. are you aware

of any studies that are more recent? Certainly there should be some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:43 PM

42. The burden of proof is on you

You're the one claiming they're dangerous.

Find something more recent or retract your statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:51 PM

44. no I said I wasn't sure they were safe

I never claimed they were dangerous.

I would rather err on the side of caution until they are tested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:17 PM

53. Same concept

You claimed they're not safe, the burden of proof is on you.

I've worn one for 15 years. No problems.

Hundreds of people I worked with worth them for longer. No problems.

Thousands of people have worn them for years at Boeing, no evidence of problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:06 PM

36. EVERYTHING causes cancer in lab mice and rats. They are so cancer-prone,

when I still saw rats in my vet practice, that's literally all I ever saw rats for: tumors, tumors, and more tumors.

So this in and of itself means nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:08 PM

37. And they are given massive doses

It's not like they are tested under real life circumstances.

They can't. Rat's lives aren't long enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:38 PM

38. it sure doesn't prove there is an issue in humans

On the other hand, there are no long term studies in humans. I think the system in question with the school children is that these things are getting "pinged" many times a day, too. I am not saying there is an issue. I am saying they might be. Plus I can't figure out why these are necessary or even helpful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:02 PM

32. They're not

The article she cites are studies done almost 20 years ago. The technology has changed dramatically since then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:38 PM

39. Then there must be some more recent studies?

I'd like to see them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:42 PM

41. You're seriously asking me to prove a negative?

That's just bad form.

You are the one claiming they are dangerous. The burden of proof is on you.

And 20 year old studies just isn't going to cut it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:15 PM

51. The Technology has CHANGED???

The basic technology has NOT changed, these tags are "energized" by some outside source, then data is transferred. In theory this was possible 50 years ago.

On the other hand, what energy is needed and what data can be transferred has changed, but that is more the result of minimizing of electronic parts. Thus it takes less energy to gather more data today, then it did 20 years ago.

As to the relationship between Cancer and these devices, the standard test for years has been to take two group of mice (mice know to be cancer prone) and give them everything the same EXCEPT for what is being tested, then you compare the cancer rates (These are called the "Control" and "Test" Groups in most such experiments). Since the Cancer rates in these Lab mice are well known, if Test group gets "Statistically" more Cancer then the Control Group, that is evidence of Cancer. This method of testing for Cancer has been used for Decades, it has been attacked but it is the basis of almost ALL of out findings of Cancer and causation.

Now, high doses of whatever is being tested is used, to speed up the research, but even this is subject to controls.

My point is, just because a test was done 20 or 100 years ago is unimportant, if it meets minimal scientific standards. That the test was done on equipment that required a lot more power actually makes the test more valid as to the underlying causation.

The only really valid objection to such tests is if the results are the results of the excess amount as opposed to the much lower amounts most people are exposed to. The problem with that objection is simple, you are saying that a certain level of risk is acceptable and unless it is clearly show that even low level exposure has high risks we should ignore the results that the substance causes cancer.

This is tied in with the concept that the body has ways to deal with Cancers and in the above tests that capability is NOT taken into consideration. The objection to this argument is simple, it is like saying ANY TEST is invalid except actual human tests in actual settings, an impossible way to test things.

Sorry, the tests were valid 20 years ago, they are valid today. You may not like them, but they are valid. You can attack them on the grounds that today's chips do NOT need the power of those older chips and given that situation the tests, based on much higher energy inputs then is required today are invalid as to today's chips. but that is NOT saying the studies themselves are invalid.

Side note: One of the reason for no subsequent tests is under the rules of medicine in the US and most of the World, it is the person supplying the product in question to do the tests. The producers of these chips, knowing the results of the earlier studies have refused to pay for any such tests. No one else will do the test, including the Governments. Thus they are no other tests. We have to use these 20 year old test for they are the best we have, to ignore them just because we don't like them proves nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:12 PM

58. I noticed something about your post

No mention of the condenser and circuitry changes over the years which were designed to prevent bleeding of the signal, which would lower the risk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #58)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:58 PM

61. The issue is the Energy that enters the body.

I wanted to avoid the use of the term "Radiation" for technically that is what is entering the body. When people hear the word "Radiation" they think in term of Nuclear radiation not that Sun-rays from the Sun also being "Radiation", Radiations is a form of energy (heat energy when you think of Sun-rays).

It appears the problem involved this radiation, radiation of radio beams that include enough energy power to "turn on" the chip for downloading. There is no way to reduce this form of "Radiation" via "condenser and circuitry changes" for it is the mechanism used to energize the chip. It has to "bleed" just to get to the chip. That is the energy that was tested NOT how that energy is used in the chip. Given that, these tests are valid even if 20 years old.

Now, the chips being used today do NOT need the energy chips needed 20 years ago, Thus the energy needed to energize these chips is way lower then what was needed 20 years ago. Thus radiation exposure is reduced (and again it is radiation from energy wavies not from nuclear radiation that I am discussing). These tiny burst of energy is what is in question, not the energy used inside the chips.

Now, most of these chips require you to put the chip near the energy source so the energy burst can reach the chip. I read the original article and I came away with the impression such nearness is NOT required for the use of such cards (i.e. can be energize by just walking pass a post with the required energy source). Now, that is an IMPRESSION, it is NOT stated in the actual article.

On the other hand such "Walk by Cards" is the next step in the use of such cards. It is technically possible to do so now, but I have NOT read of any such use. In a school it is easy to do, just set up two posts on each side of a hallway and record as the cards go by (The charge is constant, as a card goes through the area between the posts, such cards are given a charge and the move is recorded).

If that is the case (i.e. what I call "Walk by cards") then the "Radiation" will occur every time you walk by the posts, even if you have no ID Card to charge. Thus you have a radiation exposure (Radiation in the form of heat and energy as oppose to nuclear radiation) even if you do NOT use these cards.

I suspect others in this thread picked up the same impression I had, but did not understand it was an impression as oppose to a stated fact. I suspect this has caused some of the contention on this thread, people thinking in terms of cards that must be taken out and pass near a card reader (and thus any radiation is restricted to the card) and people thinking in terms of walking through a card reader and getting the radiation dose the card needs to have to be read. i.e. The difference between what is practiced today and what is possible today.

How it is practiced, it is hard to get anywhere near the radiation used in the tests of 20 years ago. On the other hand, as it can be done today (The Walk through system I mentioned above), you will need close to the energy needed 20 years ago for the present card reading system for such a "Walk through" system AND such "Radiation" will hit anyone going through such a system even if they have no card to read.

Thus in some ways this thread is a commentary on people's perception of how systems can and are used and that they are uncomfortable with the increasing ability of the Government to track you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #8)


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:35 AM

10. I guess she doesn't want a driver license and car either...

Stupidstition is strong in this one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:39 AM

12. It could be worse...

My former office required not only we have an id card with an RFID chip in it, but we had to have a fingerprint scan ALONG with that card - just to get into the building! Mind, this was a call center for a bank. Fortunately we didnt need fingerprints to get OUT.

Before that it used to be a magnetic strip card - slide the card through the reader to get in and out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:08 AM

14. Does she have a cell phone? Does she know that cell phones have tracking capabilities?

Does that make Apple or Sprint or Samsung or Verizon Satan? Does that make her marked by The Beast?

God, Teh Stupid, it never fucking stops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hatrack (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:58 AM

29. My thought exactly

As a parent, would you want your child running around without a cell phone these days?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:12 PM

50. Wouldn't bother me at all for a child to be without a cell phone and I'm a parent and grandparent

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hatrack (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:58 PM

46. the Bible thing seems like a silly reason, I agree

But cell phones are optional. Nobody is saying that she can't go to school without a cell phone. The school is saying that she can't attend the school without a chipped necklace.

It's really an issue of privacy. There should be an "opt out".

I don't really see it as the mark of the beast though, LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:25 PM

56. You should read the article

They did give her the option to opt-out and have a badge without the chip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:34 AM

15. If this wins in the court, we can say voter ID is a mark of the beast

and get rid of voter IDs for good hahaha

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:20 AM

26. LOL, love it! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:58 AM

28. Apparently she didn't read her book very carefully

The mark is a tattoo, not a badge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:11 PM

48. well in this case

she apparently isn't taking the word of the bible literally,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:02 PM

31. We just tossed my sons in an old microwave for a minute.

My sons school requires that they wear ID's with embedded RFID. I've always taught my kids that the government has no right to track you, so to blindly submit to electronic surveillance would contradict everything I've taught them.

So we nuked it. They can still ask for, and view, the ID on campus, but it's not scannable any longer. The computers have no idea where he is...which is how it should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:04 PM

34. Go to any computer repair store and stand next to their degausser

Problem solved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:46 PM

43. Agreed!

But if they ping these don't they know that he is "missing"? I'm pretty sure in San Antonio the school would issue them a new one that worked.

Otherwise, very clever.

I can't believe how people here seem to embrace big brother. Strange.

Mark of the beast is a little over the top as a reason, but I am a huge privacy advocate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #43)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:59 PM

69. They've replaced it three times.

And they called me on it after the third, threatening to make me pay for any new replacements. I calmly explained that their policy requires that students take them home, but that I don't allow any sort of government issued tracking devices into my home, and that the school lacked the authority to mandate ANYTHING within my home. Any tracking devices brought into my home will be neutralized. They stated that they were school property and that I couldn't just "deface" them, so I told the principal that my son was perfectly willing to pick one up before school every morning, and drop it off every day after class, if the school wanted to protect its property. Of course, since he has both a 0-period AND is often at marching band practice until after 8pm, and since the school requires students to have their ID's while participating in both, they would need to keep the office staffed so that my son could turn it in and pick it up when leaving campus and entering campus.

The principal said he'd call me back, but I never heard another word from them. My son still has the same nuked ID. It's my understanding that a number of his friends have now done the same thing.

Most people either don't care or are easily intimidated into following along. Neither applies to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:10 PM

47. She Is Right But For The Wrong Reason

I fail to see where the school has come up with a compelling reason for this invasion of privacy. If religious grounds are allowed to stand here then it seems we are a Theocracy because I don't see where you can draw a line in the sand as religious grounds are set as absolute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:28 PM

66. Local district uses them.

You have to have them to board the bus. You're scanned and the fact you're on the bus is recorded and your presence on the bus validated. Same for exiting the bus and entering the school. Then you're scanned when you exit the school and get on (and then off) the bus.

The reason?

1. Some cases of custody fights. One parent would nab the kid between home and the bus stop. The school wanted to show that the kidnapping occured when the school wasn't the kid's temporary guardian. It's also an entirely different matter to kidnap a kid from school property instead of from the street in front of his house.

2. Kids would get off the bus at school and, in the confusion, vanish for the day. The school could track him to being on school property. No need to search his neighborhood.

3. Kids would sneak on the wrong bus or sneak off at the wrong stop. The scanner tells the driver--who may be a sub or a temp or newly switched to that route--that it's okay for you to get off at that stop. Or not. And if the driver let you off anyway, the driver's butt is toast.

Downside: Kids have been known to swap IDs to fool the scanner and the bus driver didn't check the photos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:23 PM

59. I don't think the school needs to know where a student is at all times, however,

a parent should. Wouldn't a cell phone accomplish the same service? I'm not a parent, but if I were, I would balk at this intrusion on what could be the entire family's privacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:02 PM

63. It only works within the school

Likely when you pass through the entrance. Sort of like those detectors at stores for loss prevention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paulie (Reply #63)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:32 PM

67. Still, should their every move be tracked?

I mean a pedophile could use that information when they are using the bathrooms and there is no one else around. I dunno, my teachers did a pretty good job with an old fashioned desk chart in the classroom. If someone was missing from recess or lunch break, the teacher usually got an answer from a classmate who had seen them during the break and could tell her where the student was last, usually a bathroom or at their locker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:08 PM

65. The Number Of The Beast

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:40 PM

68. Why can't she just attend Hagee's school?

He does have a private school in San Antonio

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:09 PM

77. religion is a disease. It should be eradicated... that being said...

I agree that its a violation of her rights but her reasoning is idiotic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:51 PM

78. Do tracking devices interfere with high school kids' ability to behave like normal human beings?

In high school, friends and I occasionally skipped class or went someplace unauthorized. A few times we left the school grounds, went to get burgers or whatever just to get away from school for a while. Sometimes people would get away with this, other times people would be caught and disciplined.

Isn't occasionally getting away with being in the wrong place just part of growing up?

Teenagers are people too. If somebody had tried to put a tracking device on me in highschool I would have resisted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #78)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:21 AM

81. Could just leave your ID in your locker. Lol.

Problem solved!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread