Talk:VeriChip

Tremendous biases throughout this article

In the Privacy section, the article goes off on an unecessary and POV tangent about monitering cell phones, and cameras in New York. What does that have to do with VeriChip?

The rest of the article focuses exclusively on harms of the chips. Presumably someone has said something good about them (like the company) and those arguments should be represented.

Ahalterman 04:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

True implications

I think wikipedia has a responsibility to display the true implications of the verichip. I think the current information displayed under verichip achieves this well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.100.67 (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I do too. I mean...we know the pros but we need the cons too in order to really know about the subject. The article explains the benefits as well as the concerns...it is neutral already. If the concerns are taken out it will not be neutral then, don't you agree?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.113.250 (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above, there's no POV in the article. The flag should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.100.14 (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Good really, i feel well informed from a un-biased source now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.38.118.188 (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

POV - Privacy Language

The language in the section "Privacy" seems to be defending the use of the chips, instead of just unbiased reporting of both sides of the argument. See: "Again, this is not true." Jsysinc 23:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

83.132.128.252 did some major edits on this article 2 times and 3 minor edits and made it sound less controversial. You might have to revert back to an older version.80.109.79.136 10:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

He replaced "controversy" with "concerns", he took away the demonstration of how to clone a VeriChip. He wrote stuff like "It is therefore built for in-room applications like the rapid, secure patient identification offered by VeriMed and cannot be used to track children, prevent kidnappings, etc." and "The RFID microchips recently inserted into the hands of some individuals for the purpose of speeding everyday authentication (e.g. signing onto a computer) are not related to VeriChip in any way. More importantly, those microchips have not received FDA testing and clearance. VeriChip's human-implantable RFID microchip inserted into the right tricep during a physician visit is the only implantable RFID technology with FDA approval." which sound like he works for VeriChip, and these are his first and only edits. He even took away the section on Bodily Sanctity. Therefore I say again reverting would be best.80.109.79.136 10:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

199.227.112.7 removed part of the section "religious concerns". This guy must be an athiest or thinks it might be a conspiracy theory.--168.13.191.66 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It also contains a reference to VeriChip's website, which can't really be considered a reliable source.80.109.79.136 14:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the article to balance it back out a bit from before 83.132.128.252 went on an edit spree. SynergyBlades 13:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Acording to 168.13.191.66, atheists can't edit wikipedia. How is that for unbiased information... The whole article is full of biased disinformation from fundamental christians. Despite the fact that the Verichip is inserted into the right tricep and not on the right hand and so in no way linked to the Bible's passage, people here seem to feel it is ok to associate the Verichip with Satan. And even worse, that this link between Verichip and Satan is considered "unbiased information".

I would like to note that the person who added the above is 89.155.63.6 because he didn't sign. Also, I don't understand what you're talking about because what you wrote about "The Resistance Manifesto" sounds like fundamentalist Christian propaganda to me. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 22:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Which proves how unbiased my approach to this matter is. If it's proper trivia then it should be inserted, which was clearly the case. What I don't agree with is the fact that the whole article seems to condemn the Verichip on moral grounds. And I apologize for not signing the comments but I don't really know how to. 83.132.176.132

I just want to say that religious propaganda or not it is still information regarding on how religious groups feel about the VeriChip, I call for a clean up, the religious section should ONLY contain how religious organisations feel towards it no matter where the VeriChip is inserted. The controversy is very real and that *information* should be provided. [[[User:Nullhility|Nullhility]] (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)]

"Privacy advocates have also..."

"Also"? Did something get removed that I'm missing? Caswin 00:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nubs

HI NUBS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.73.250 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"What have chips in the brain to do with the Verichip?"

In response to below it is not the parent company of verichip is Halo they currently use chips in the hospitals to monitor babies but only on their hospital bracelet and if you like at patents taken out by verichip they have one that corresponds to the notion of implantation of a chip into the brain so that it would be protected by the skull as a baby mature. Why would a company need this patent if they did not wish to use it. Halo represents what a ring around the head and the chip sends out radio rings. You put it together you see their plan! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.77.151.196 (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This below is just a fantasy! This has nothing to do with the Verichip! Why are users returning this to the article? What has a chip that is inserted in the brain to do with the Verichip? To me, this has no place here.

"However, the development of implanted chips to replace Debit and Credit Cards will make it necessary to place the chip in a location that makes it easy to use when going through the checkout line in the store. Most people are right handed, and swiping the palm over a scanner is the easiest and most obvious location for a chip therefore. Other implants are being developed already in conjunction with the creation of the so-called "World Wide Mind," which (according to a recent PBS special) is due to start coming online in 2013. These implants will be inserted directly into the brain (that is the head, not fore head, but it will be toward the front of the brain). It is ironic that W-W-W in Hebrew is 6-6-6 (Waw-Waw-Waw) and that numerologically this is a "9" (6 + 6 + 6 = 18 = 9) which is related to Material Perfection (Materialistic Perfection). Many religious people, including many Muslims, believe that the Internet, Verichips, the World Wide Mind, and the Banking System (which began in ancient Babylon) are all inter-related (THE BEAST, THE GREAT HARLOT of Revelation). The real choice, for others, which the chip merely personifies, is between Materialism & Spirituality as the center of one's life. " 83.132.176.132 06:17, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)

Age limit?

how old do you have to be in order to have a Verichip? Baconator96 05:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Baconator96

Is "We Will Not Be Chipped" notable/real?

The list of proponents includes an organization "We Will Not Be Chipped", which is not nearly as familiar as Albrecht. Looking at their site I have a gut feeling that the organization is not genuine. Many of the subsections on their site are empty or nearly so; their description of hacking a Verichip (as opposed to Wikipedia's links) is several pages of mashed-together text that looks impossible; they compare Verichips to Nazis and mind control and use a Hollerith machine comparison which seems planned to fail if challenged. Their site encourages everyone to link to it by "Verichipping" their sites with a code that allows the parent site to see who is visiting the target site. Their T-shirts display "Verichip" very prominently and contribute to brand recognition. I did not even spot a link to CASPIAN on their site. Last but not least, what first made me suspicious is a small distinctive detail, which I think it prudent not to specify, which reminds me of the phony "anti-tobacco" campaigns run by cigarette manufacturers.

As a first step, I'm taking them off the list of "opponents" because I don't see them as notable enough to list there (e.g. Yahoo news has no hit for "We will not be chipped"). 70.15.116.59 (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Misleading tone

Proponents "Some health experts including Former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, who sits on the board of directors of VeriChip's parent company Applied Digital Solutions and holds a considerable share of the VeriChip, support the VeriChip as a "useful tool in sharing medical information with health care providers in emergency situations"."

This sentence has a misleading introduction; It states the position to which Thompson held which expresses his credibility, and then sections off his relationship to VeriChip's corporation, completing it with his comment. It sets the tone that though he is the Former Secretary of Health and Human Services, his comments are skewed based on his affiliation with VeriChip. That would be an opinion based speculation and not fact. This sentence credits and discredits him all at once.

The use of the word "some" in the beginning also makes this sentence biased in the view that there are more experts who do not support VeriChip than those who do support. This may be a fact, but you should have some statistic report to verify "some" verses "many" which can be leading words in of them selves.

Finally the financial investment Thompson does or does not engage in is of no purpose here. The fact he is on the board of directors of a related company can arguably fit since it indirectly pertains to the subject of this article and directly to the section to which it has been placed. His financial endeavors however, whether in this cooperation or not, has no place alongside the subject matter, and does not bring anything to the table that would otherwise be lost if left out.

The sentence should be rewritten to keep all parts neutral. Something to the effect of the fallowing might work well:

"Tommy Thompson, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, along with other experts support the VeriChip as a "useful tool in sharing medical information with health care providers in emergency situations". Thompson also sits on the board of directors of VeriChip's parent company Applied Digital Solutions." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.167.208 (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Removed

THIS STUPID CHIP WILL CONTROL HUMAN BEINGS! YOU WILL BE CONTROLLED LIKE A ROBOT! ONLY THE PRESTIGIOUS FEW WILL BE ABLE TO GET THIS CHIP! IF YOU DON'T YOU WIL NOT BE ABLE TO BUYS FOOD, DRINK, OWN LAND, PROPERTY, ETC.

I cut this, couldn't be bothered to sign in to do it. Obvious vandalism (and if serious, not very well informed about the workings of the human nervous system). 194.223.81.88 (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The vandal, agreeably misinformed on the nervous system, was more obviously talking about the "deletion" of your ID from the VeriChip database subsequently leading to an unusable chip. That's what I think he/she meant to say. Nullhility (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusing statement

Under "Religious Concerns" there's this one sentence that doesn't make sense. It says, "It is often surmised that the sixteen digits in the chip stand for the last digits of 666, the original Mark of the Beast." How could a 16 digit number stand for the last digits of "666"? The last digits of 666 are either 66 or 6, which definitely doesn't make 16 digits. Should this really say, "It is often surmised that the last three of the sixteen digits in the chip are 666." or something along those lines?Totakeke423 (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: VeriChip Can be used to track its subjects

PLEASE MENTION IN THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ABOUT VERICHIP THAT IT CAN BE USED TO TRACK PEOPLE!! Make no mistake, like it or not, whether you want to be found or not, with this chip they will know where u are at all times. I know it might be useful in finding people that have been kidnapped or locating wanted criminals, but I do not want the government or anyone for that matter to be able to track my every move. Its bad enough they can do that with cellphones but at least you can toss that. I see this implantable chip as an infringement on my privacy and I hope they dont even think about making this obligatory, so please put this in your article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawkes-v (talk • contribs) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

it isn't hard to think of situations where tracking people could be of help. imagine if the passengers of the air france flight that fell in the ocean had rfid devices on them, how easy it would be to find them and to know who they are. imagine if you have a parent with alzheimer that wanders off frequently. imagine you have a child that doesn't sit still for a minute. imagine a rfid device that checks up on you regularly and knows you're having a stroke even before you do and calls the medics to your gps location.

and right now, you are as easily traceable with your cellphone turned on and on you. but that doesn't seem to bother you, now does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.77.42 (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

These chips can track people, and in time they will become a complete absurdity associated with the breakdown of our civil liberties and natural rights as people. It's true that we can see the benefits of having one of these traceable chips implanted in our arms: we can be rescued from danger very easily, our health conditions can be monitored continuously. But there is a huge price to pay for these conceived notions of safety: our every action and everything we do will be monitored under the watchful eye of an omnipresent corporation. These chips that are surgically implanted into oneself serve as the precursors to the idea of bending and reducing the natural rights and civilian privacy of our people. At least, this all is only my opinion, just see for yourself in this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197&hl=en. WinterSpw (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Chip in the left hand?

Couldn't the chip be implanted in the left hand? Or any other part of the body? That way it averts the religious fear of the mark of the beast in the right hand or the forehead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.79.217 (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Religious concerns" section removed

The "Religious concerns" section has been removed as original research. An examination of the removed material reveals of lack of reliable secondary sources. Sources cited were:

1. Revelation 13:16-18 - biblical verse, primary source
2. [1] - not about religious concerns
3. [2] - not about religious concerns
4. [3] - personal web page
5. [4] - personal web page

The Hero of This Nation (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the removal was mistaken. I see only one of those references as a personal web page, not the two you stated. I woudl revise your list as follows:

1. Revelation 13:16-18 - biblical verse, primary source, but one that gives context for the controversy
2. [5] - Article contains direct reference to religious concerns
3. [6] - not about religious concerns, but referencing chips in hands
4. [7] - Academic web page
5. [8] - personal web page

It is clear that there is a religious controversy, documented in at least one source. I'm not about to get into an edit war with you over this, but I disagree with you. The section could easily be edited to remove the personal web page reference. The Book of Revelation may be a primary source, but it gives context rather than being a reference itself. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing rather than merely reverting. I will respond fully within 24 hours. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Timtrent, I do not necessarily disagree that a mention of religious concerns belongs in this article. However, the text I removed was problematic for a few reasons. For example:

Revelation: Some Christians have come out against the device, as there is a Biblical prophecy where all persons must receive the Mark of the Beast "in their right hand or in their foreheads", described in Book of Revelation 13:16-18…

I would expect this claim to be sourced to a reliable secondary source that discuses this Christian opposition. But rather, it is sourced to Revelation 13:16-18. This is textbook original research. Even more problematic is the bolding of the word "in" so as to emphasize the interpretation that the "mark" is beneath the skin. Of the several Bible translations I checked on biblegateway.com, only the King James Version uses "in" in that passage; the rest use "on" or "upon." That's some pretty blatant cherry-picking.

I missed the mention of religious concerns at the end of the complianceandprivacy.com article, and for that I apologize. But the article is mainly about privacy concerns, and the mention of religion at the end appears to be an aside. I'm not sure if that article is the best source to use.

The portion:

This concern is compounded by the fact that, according to a recent ABC News article, there have been reports of other chips being implanted in patients' right hands. However, the chip has also been seen being implanted in the left arm or hand as well as other areas.

is more improper original research. The cited ABCNews.com article, does not mention religious concerns at all, and does not even specify whether the right or left hands of the subject couple were used. But since, the bible verse says "right hand", the editor who wrote this text did too.

The web page http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/beast616.htm is cited solely to back up the statement:

It is often surmised that the sixteen digits in the chip stand for the last digits of 616 the original Mark of the Beast.

That statement is purely the conjecture of its writer. The cited web page only discusses the number 616, not microchips at all.

Finally, the statement:

The Greek word Charagma (which stands for 666) describes the piercing bite of a snake, which is akin to using a needle to place the device under your skin.

cites the web page http://www.ridingthebeast.com/articles/verichip-implant/. Besides being a personal web page, that page does not metion the Greek work "Charagma" or its meaning. (Note: A different link on the same site does go into depth about "charagma". See http://www.ridingthebeast.com/articles/epi-charagma-chi-xi-stigma/)

I think a section on religious concerns over VeriChip would need to be completely rewritten to be in line with our policy on original research. Thanks, The Hero of This Nation (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed rationale. To be fair, the religious controversy is an interesting side issue as such things so often are, but is only a side issue, though it was news at the time. I share many of the concerns that you have expressed eloquently. I was thinking that, because of the analysis you have done, you are in a good position to create a far shorter, simpler and more precise section and insert that into the article. The C&P refernce "will serve" unless and until a better one is found to place alongside it, I woudl think. The book of revelations sets the scene but is not itself a reference. Whether one includes the extra verbiage about hands is debatable.

Are you up for it? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added some reliable sources that actually discuss these religious "Mark of the Beast" concerns. Fences&Windows 19:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Source #11

Source #11 does not work —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.50.70.12 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Added {{Dead link|date=November 2010}}. Hint: Referring to a source as #11 becomes quickly dated. It was the "Rodent Sarcomagenesis" reference from the VeriChip Corp website (currently at #12). HairyWombat 22:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Discontinued?

The Microchip_implant_(human) page has this section:

Some time between May and July 2010, the Positive ID Corporation [prior known as VeriChip Corporation] discontinued marketing the implantable human microchip.[Ref: Edwards, Jim (July 15, 2010). "Down With the Chip: PositiveID Axes Its Scary Medical Records Implant". bNET. Retrieved 2010-07-17. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)]

If this is so, it should be reflected in this article. Tøpholm (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on VeriChip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090802111839/http://www.healthlinkinfo.com:80/faq/ to http://www.healthlinkinfo.com/faq/#4._Question:_Where_is_the_Health_Link_inserted

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on VeriChip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141224104627/http://www.verichipcorp.com/files/RodentSarcomagenesis092807Wustenberg.pdf to http://www.verichipcorp.com/files/RodentSarcomagenesis092807Wustenberg.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on VeriChip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071025021724/http://www.computerbytesman.com:80/biometrics/verichip.htm to http://www.computerbytesman.com/biometrics/verichip.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.verichipcorp.com/files/RodentSarcomagenesis092807Wustenberg.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)