From: flesh@wps.com (Flesh)
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 94 19:52:02 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: (forward message on privacy)
Message-ID: <9403090351.AA01505@wps.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Forwarded message:
From tomj Tue Mar  8 18:49:17 1994
From: tomj (Tom Jennings)
Message-Id: <9403090249.AA01170@wps.com>
Subject: Re: (forward message on privacy) (fwd)
To: flesh@fido.wps.com (Flesh)
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 18:49:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9403090221.AA01084@wps.com> from "Flesh" at Mar 8, 94 06:21:38 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 897       

> Today I ran into a situation that made me completely nausiated and feel like
> my privacy had been completely invaded... It involves a chip which is 
> implanted in animals and used for identification... 


Humans are worth more money, and genotyping will do the same thing, for
cheaper, and with little outcry. Implanted chips means at least a
doctors visit for every humasn in the country; genotyping only happens
like fingerprinting, when you get a drivers license or soemthing. 

I think the underlying concern is OK, but misplaced worrying about
kitty-cats. Cats can certainly be violated, but usually aren't aware of
it ahead of time, and there's not much they can do about it :-)

Consider also they generally *kill* cats they can't return. A chip
implant under these circumstances seems not a problem. 

-- 
 Tom Jennings -- tomj@wps.com -- World Power Systems --  San Francisco, Calif.