[Fair Use: For Education and Research Purpose Only]

NOTE: Found this yesterday. I am posting it in case it got missed. If it was already posted somewhere here, please let me know. I am a pet owner and animal lover and want to make sure this goes on record.

February 14

PET MICROCHIP SCANNERS MAY BE RECALLED EDMONTON (CP) -- A manufacturer of a microchip used to identify lost pets says it may recall some of its 1999 scanners after the devices failed to detect the chip and nearly led to the death of some pets.

"What we're looking at now is this new batch of scanners we're having a bit of trouble with, is this a batch that needs to be recalled," said Cathy Hutcheson, spokeswoman for Avid Canada.

"I decided we need to give a call to everyone who has one to make sure it's not more of a problem than we're aware of."

The microchip is about the size of a large grain of rice. It's basically a bar code in glass that is inserted by syringe under the animal's skin near the shoulder. Information about the pet's owner will be found on the microchip registry.

One of three microchip scanners supplied by Avid to Edmonton's pound failed to pick up some microchips it is designed to read. Its competitor's scanner also failed to pick up a microchip in a dog sent to the University of Alberta, which euthanizes dogs for the city pound and uses some animals for research.

The SPCA implants identifying microchips in all dogs and cats they adopt out, and veterinarians provide the service as well.

The Edmonton SPCA has said identification errors have occurred 10 times in the last four months.

Hutcheson said as well as the Edmonton complaint, the company had three other scanners returned in December.

The Avid scanner that failed in Edmonton was one of nine ordered after scanners made by PetNet failed to pick up an Avid microchip in a dog that was sent to the university for medical research.

Three pets were discovered to be wrongly identified as strays and sent to the university in late January, one of which had its tattoo misread.

"It just happens at a time when there's already a problem," Hutcheson said. "It's Murphy's Law. It's a most definite concern."

After the incidents, university officials said they did not want to risk any more mistakes and would no longer take dogs from the city pound.

PetNet president Paul Brown said the failure of his company's scanners was "a fairly isolated incident".

He estimated two or three complaints are received each year with scanners not reading a chip though they do detect a chip is present.

Avid is not only investigating why its scanner failed but is also developing a training video to show agencies how to properly scan animals.

It also has a meeting scheduled with its competitor next week to discuss the issue.

PetNet and Avid currently have about 4,000 scanners in operation at animal shelters and vet clinics across Canada with hundreds of thousands of animals registered on the system.

http://www.canoe.ca/TechNews0002/14_pet.html

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), February 21, 2000

Answers

Dee,

EEEEWWWWWWWWWW!!!

This technology gives me the creeps.

True, it can be useful in locating a lost pet. However, I remember reading several years ago(sorry; don't remember where or in what format, so you can take it as you like) about a poll in California, either Beverly Hills or Bellaire. Seems the parents in one of these neighborhoods were asked if they would like this done to their KIDS, to protect them in case they were kidnapped. The majority responded "yes."

While this was not done anywhere to my knowledge, the implications are serious and disturbing. Instead of choosing as an informed adult whether or not you want a tracking device in your body, you grow up with one implanted in you, perhaps shortly after your birth. You might not ever be aware of this device, as a result(a 10 year old might certainly remember, but a little tyke probably won't.). I dunno if this is such a spiffy idea.

What if said child grows up into an adult, and has differing views on their current political system? What if in their future, being of the wrong belief system is a State offense(like it isn't now...)? What if said individual decided to "hide out," or leave their country altogether, to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness elsewhere?

They can't. They will be tracked, found, and caught, made all too easy by that little chip their parents wanted them to have, to "make them safe." If they went very far, TPTB will make them pay and pay and pay and pay for causing the government du jour to spend some shekels to drag their butt to "justice."

Truly ugly scenario. Paranoid? Perhaps. However, for reasons I really don't want to get into here, I had been made a target of an investigation by a branch of the government(thankfully[?] not the IRS). Fortunately, I was not punished(yet. I may be still; we'll see. Most likely financial sanctions of some sort; i.e. losing my job, having to move, possible legal hassles). However, the fact that my opinions were plucked from the 'net and were laid before me in a nasty meeting made me realize that everything we say, everything we do can come under scrutiny. I was lucky; nothing I wrote and sent out to public forums and as private e-mails would be considered slanderous, and indeed was not anything I would not state to someone's face. The fact that I was targeted and my words were tracked down(and remember, all without the help of a little chip inside me; that will make this sort of thing just so much easier) made me very worried, though; what if TPTB DIDN'T feel that I was protected under the First Amendment(they stated my written opinions were protected in my interrogation, and therefore I would not be "punished" for telling the truth), and I had to go on the lam to protect my hide and my opinions?

Hard to do with a chip in my shoulder.

Sorry; this topic really upsets me, and I hope we never see this sort of thing used on people. Bad enough as it is; we certainly don't need to add fuel to the fire.

Then again, I guess it is only a matter of time. I just hope I don't live to see it.

Peace and Love,

Don

-- Shimoda (enlighten@me.com), February 21, 2000.

The chip can be pretty easily removed. With current scanners the chip needs to be located just right for scanners to read. There will be a way for someone to find out if they are chipped and have it removed. BTW...they are inserted with a syringe type instrument with a big needle.

I don't disagree about privacy concerns but today you can be identified by finger/hand/foot, etc., prints, voice, dental records, DNA. Chips will just make it a little easier AND will be easier for you or me to remove or forge. If "they" become dependent on the ease of identification with chips other means will be less available to them to readily use. "We" can fool them with our simple forgeries. It might just be easier to assume other identities under normal circumstances.

-- granny-TX (westamyx@bigfoot.com), February 21, 2000.

There's a big difference between chipping pets and chipping people. If you've ever lost a pet (we have, but fortunately found him later -- but MANY are lost forever), you know how precious they are. A pet can't say who he is, or where he lives, or what his phone number is. And if his collar comes off, he's "just one more stray". And THAT means a death sentence within a couple of days after he's picked up.

-- Charles Underwood Farley (c@u.f), February 21, 2000.

Citizen privacy has certainly become a hot topic, Don. I hope all goes well for you.

Good point made, Charles. Thank you all for your input.

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), February 21, 2000.

Howdy, Folks!

Well, I'm gonna take your word for it, Granny. Yes, right now the chip might be easily removed; however, this technology is fairly old(in the biz, more than a year seems like ancient history, but I digress). Newer chip technology will be available in the next few years that can allow deeper implants, as will the ability of said deep implants to give off detailed information even when far under the surface of our hides:

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002ca1

thus making removal of and even detecting an implant more difficult.

(OT - BTW Granny, you're in Texas, I gather? Wadda ya think of the "allow us to scan your thumbprint if you want a driver's license" gig that DPS foisted on the citizens of Texas a few years back? Personally, I'm glad I had my license before that bit came into play. No traffic violations, so I got to renew it by mail a few years ago; I'm up for renewal in 2001. I've been informed by DPS that I won't be able to mail in again; they want a thumbprint on file. Good thing I can walk to wherever I need to go; I don't appreciate the notion and don't plan on partaking in my share of the criminalization of a population...)

Yes, "we" can fool "them" with simple forgeries. I just find it threatening that I might have to resort to such a thing to maintain what little privacy I currently enjoy, and end up breaking the law to boot. If caught, there are some pretty stiff penalties for creating additional identities. Makes it hard to go ahead and do such a thing if you aren't already in the process of breaking the law, and if you're already being hunted, it becomes that much more difficult(you'll probably be saying to yourself, "why didn't I become someone else before they started looking for me!") to assume another identity if folks are on the lookout for your smilin' mug.

(All of the above is simply a mental experiment in "what if this information was harvested by a well-meaning government and a ruthless Fascist State subsequently took over, using this information to remove the 'wrong thinking' citizens?" I hope this does not happen, and I don't think we're quite there yet; then again, I wonder what went through the mind of the Jews in Germany in about 1932...)

It is up to the parents to protect their child from or allow invasive procedures, at least until that child is of the "age of consent" determined by his or her society(in this country if they're under 18, they don't get to vote on it, either.). Charles, you state: "There's a big difference between chipping pets and chipping people." True, but chipping pets creates a very slippery slope. Once the population has been indoctrinated into the belief that this is a "safe and useful" procedure through using it on their beloved pets, it won't be too difficult to convince folks that they should have the same procedure done to their children. As a result, I can see selling a "safe" procedure to the population to make sure their children "stay safe" so they can always be found, "no matter what." TPTB would say, "You'd do it for Fluffy, wouldn't you want to do it for your children?"

Remember, today's infants are tomorrow's Enemies of the State; better get 'em processed now...

(If people could just be a tad more responsible when it comes to their kids and their pets, we wouldn't even be worrying about this. Through our own inaction and laziness, we shall have our freedoms slowly chipped away...)

I've never lost a pet. Unless my house burns down or there is something like a natural disaster, I doubt I will. Whenever I take my pets out of the house, they are in a carrier, on a lead, or in someting called a "super yard"(basically a large collapsable playpen for small animals). They are NEVER out of my or my family's sight. I feel the same way about small children; an adult should be present and available for them at all times, until the child CAN "...say who he is, or where he lives, or what his phone number is."

Whether it is a pet or a child that can't communicate yet, I feel it is a "death sentence" for either if they are left in an environment that they cannot survive in. It is our duty as responsible pet owners and I assume as parents(I have no children, just 20 homeless animals[no dogs or cats, either] that either got loose or were dumped at the shelter to be adopted or die when their very short time was up) to ensure that our charges are not placed in a hostile environment to begin with. In so doing we negate the need for implanted chips tied into some GPS State tracking computer.

Peace and Love, Y'all!

Don

-- Shimoda (enlighten@me.com), February 21, 2000.