Pets and microchips - Y Not Kids? (Page 2)

Justice Dept figures show that your figures are missing 2 digits.

You dismiss from your figures the kids who run away or are kidnapped by someone known to them - why would they matter less? Wouldn't we want to be able to identify them, as well?

The website I reference parsed the numbers even further:

Each year, more than 58,000 U.S. children are abducted by non-family members, often in connection with another crime. More than 200,000 children are abducted by family members who are seeking to interfere with a parent’s custodial or visitation rights.

That's 1,160 abductions by non-family members per state. Per year! That's egregiously outrageous! 

And let's not overlook that these figures are annual. So, in a 10 year period 8,000,000 children would have gone missing and 5,000,000 went missing but unreported. 13,000,000 children in 10 years. 580,000 were abucted by non family members and, using the DOJ figures, 40% of them were murdered - 232,000.

Damn straight parents get scared for their children! It's hardly a matter of overestimating the risk.

Kids and adults.

Part of the problem is when they are found, they might not be in the best condition to identify base on looks or clothing. Fingerprints and DNA may be the only way to ID them depending on if there is any dental work done, etc.

I've thought about this objection.  I'd rather have my kid back with a wound in their neck than missing for four months and then turn up dead.

I'm thinking of younger kids - 0-10 yrs old.  Cell phone not really a useful item for tracking most of them, I would think.

From a purely technical standpoint, it comes down to privacy concerns.

Let's assume for a moment that we have a GPS transmitter that can be implanted subdermal.  What about if the person is in a building?  GPS signals generally can't penetrate through thick foliage, much less concrete, steel and wood.  And RFID tags like the ones in pets or other systems have extremely limited range, usually a few inches.

From a privacy standpoint: Who maintains the data?  Who has access to the location data?  Does the chip turn off when the person reaches a certain age?  What is that age?  Worst case scenario is someone with ill intent gaining access to the system that monitors the chips.  Additionally, what about someone who creates something to illegally "sniff" the signals from the chips.  They can then create their own system to track people, possibly selling that information to others.

I was going with the assumption that it would be a pretty nasty wound created by non-sterile devices that could result in a nasty infection and/or loss of blood thus becoming just as serious a problem as everything else your child is going through. But, I like your scenario more.

I don't hear anyone raising those same concerns about the cell phones with the tracking ability.

I also can't sit here and say I can lay out the whole system to address these issues.  I just know that I think the problems you raise can be addressed and are not enough to offset the amount of lives saved, potentially.

Besides, sure someone might do that, but then its a lot more likely that they'd just pull up in a van and grab the child while walking to/from school.  I'd hedge my bet on beating the low tech criminal and take my chances with the high tech one.  Better odds.

You as the owner of the phone have the ability to turn that off.  Harder to do with a microchip.  As for protecting the data, go look at the number of data thefts and breaches within the past month.

I think that there are still technological issues that need to be addressed.  We cannot create a system that is small enough to be implanted in a person with a long enough battery life that can be an active location transmitter.

So, even disregarding all the other issues, I think that battery life and size would be the next biggest stumbling block.  Not that they aren't working on that. 

This quote is directly from the government website White House Council on Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children:

Each year, more than 58,000 U.S. children are abducted by non-family members, often in connection with another crime.  

I wonder why there is a 57,700 disparity between the FBI numbers quoted by that website and the Council on Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children.

Maybe non-family members are not necessarily strangers - neighbors, family friends, etc?

Seems to me the numbers used by the government reflect a very high risk and that has nothing to do with the media reports - those are government numbers.

(in reference to Hangloose's last post) 

Not to mention the fact that at some point those kids will grow up. Civil rights groups would freak if we turned around and used this technology to catch bad guys (they have rights too, ya know)

Look at something like fingerprints on your driver's license. A driver's license is completely voluntary. Why can't law enforcement use those fingerprints to search for criminals? Because it is a violation of the criminals privacy right. Now, you take something like chipping them at birth, which they had no say in and civil rights groups wouldn't let this through either.

Just my opinion 

Let's do some math.

The 2000 US Census says there are 60 million kids in the US from 0-14.

60 million / 1.3 million =  46.

Are we to believe that 1 in 46 children each year gets kidnapped?  Think about that.  So in a typical school classroom, let's say there are 23 kids.  So 1/2 of all school classrooms will have a child kidnapped.

To put it another way, if you have a 1/46 chance of being kidnapped each year, that means you have about a 30% of being kidnapped at some time before age 14.

I call B.S. on that.  Someone's doing their math wrong, and it ain't me.

I'm really tired of this culture of fear in our society.  People spend an inordinate time worrying about things that are really, really unlikely to happen to them.

• Get a chip implanted in your kid lest he get kidnapped
• Buy identify theft insurance lest someone raid your bank accounts
• Don't bring a soda onto an airplane
• Don't use your cell phone for fear of cancer
• Don't get your baby vaccinated lest (s)he become austitic.

No, that's not what you are to believe since that is not what is being reported by the government. Your ratio is not entirely correct (I assume you have the correct population of children - but the government numbers do not limit the age to 0-14 yrs as you have, so your numbers are probably skewed) but we can use that just for the sake of argument.

1.3 million - or 1 in 46 - children go missing.  58,000 are abducted. Some run away. Some run away or are missing but aren't reported. Yeah, those are very wild numbers.

Just because the numbers startle your sensibilities that doesn't mean they are, therefore, unreliable. I make assumptions that the government collects and informs based upon good faith.

I don't advocate operating out of fear. I advocate operating out of good sense, taking precautions, and having faith in whatever higher power you want to call on. There's a difference between being defensive and having a good defense. I'm sure parents deal with this balancing act all the time.

I still think you guys are thinking up objections that are easily addressed.  If it is an invasion of privacy for an adult - then an adult shouldn't have it.  I'm not talking about adults having it.  My child is my responsibility until they are 18 by law, right?  (excepting cases which are the exception - thus explaining the need for the word exception).  I'm picturing a chip that can be removed at a later date.  Maybe when the parent feels it is no longer necessary.  Some parents may feel that is at 3, some at 17.  Maybe the parents and kids can work out a date when it is removed.  A lot of this I already talked about.  I said I'm not talking about being able to track whether the kid is at the library on Friday night at college.

As far as battery life and technological stumbling blocks - that's thinking like a scientist/engineer.  Just as with many other areas of medical/technological research the ability will be here long before we've worked out the philosophical/legal issues surrounding its use.  I'm trying to advance that part of the conversation.  Long term medical devices exist that are implanted in bodies.  It is only a matter of time before this capability exists - I'm not conviced we wouldn't already have it if it were being called for by the general public. 

 I guess I have my answer though.  I started this thread wondering why there isn't more of a desire by people to use gps/chip/medical technology to recover children quickly when they are lost/abducted/missing for whatever reason.  The answers seem to be:

1.  It would be an invasion of privacy when they are an adult.  (so take it out)
2.  The technology isn't available yet.  (I think it is, or will be so soon as to be here now)
3.  The information could be misused to endanger children. (if so they are already in danger)
4.  The child might be injured by someone removing the chip. (before they kill/rape/sell the child)
5.  We think it won't ever happen to our children. (if I thought that, I wouldn't have brought it up)

fair enough... the 58000 figure is much much less startling.  Still a large number of children, but less startling. 

Also...

6. Some of us just don't "feel right" about it and we can't explain it, other than that. 

I keep giggling at this. I know what you're saying - but I wouldn't be above slipping the vet tech $200 for the $40 chip for my infant if I had one.  And if I've thought of that, you can be sure there are plenty of other goofy people around the US who have thought about it and done it, too.

I've been thinking about it from the engineering/CS standpoint, but also from the biological standpoint.  To develop something like this, you have to make sure that the body doesn't reject it.  It's a foreign object and bodies are very good at finding ways to eliminate foreign objects or sequester them so that they can't cause damage.  That might interfere with the functionality.  It is being used in pets, but that's no guarantee it will work in people.

True, this doesn't answer the question of if we could do it, should we.  I tend to think about the logistics problems first.  The ethical questions need to stew around for a bit longer before I can really give a good answer.  I'm also lacking the emotional connection that all of the parents have because I don't have children.  That seems like it would greatly influence any answer I came up with. 

I was thinking about possible biological issues as well, but I do know that there have been people who have implanted micro RFID chips that contain medical data, and they haven't had any real issues with it.  I think it may depend, though on how deep the implant is.  I would think it akin to the Norplant birth control (I think that's the name...the one that's inserted under the skin in the arm).

I do think, though, that the power source may create issues.  If there could be way to harness the body's naturally generated electricity, that may prove viable.  Although, I'd imagine that would be even trickier. 

I still think this is the #1 reason.

HL, you have kids, right? Do you have fingerprints, current photos, stats (height, weight, hair color) and DNA profiles from your family? If not, let me know when you do...

I'm not busting your chops, but like I said, when it comes down to it, unless someone comes to your door and sells you this stuff, most people won't go out of their way to do it even if it were free.

"I know where my kids are 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% of the time."