Unbound Edition - The Dumbest Thing about the “Dumbest Tech Bill so Far This Year”

I happen to agree, but not the way Cooper does. He argues that the mere introduction of the bill is idiotic. Well, if our country didn’t allow warrantless wiretapping, imprisonment without cause, etc., I might agree. (For a laundry list of what's allowed in this wonderful new version of America, see this video.)

No, what I find dumb (and quite frankly, rather amazing) is that nine senators voted against the bill’s passage. Huh? So, there are at least nine people in California who think that someone should be able to force implant a radio frequency identification device in another citizen. Wonderful news.

The rest of this post would be nothing more than profanity, so I’ll stop now. It’s good to know where we’re headed. Kevin, I finally think I’m open to joining your romantic new beginning.

coinkydink?
written by cornelius, August 31, 2007 03:33 PM

Interesting how if you just glance at "Simitian," it looks like "Simian."

I'm just sayin.

Ministry of drawing stupid conclusions?
written by tim, August 31, 2007 04:50 PM

"So, there are at least nine people in California who think that someone should be able to force implant a radio frequency identification device in another citizen."

Or maybe those 9 senators think it's not something the government has any business creating laws about. Or that if we have a law against that, it implies that forcing people to embed other electronic devices in your body is (or should be) legal.

When Hamilton argued against the Bill of Rights, did you think it was because he thought free speech was a bad idea?

I'm more shocked that *all but nine* senators thought "why yes, the government is within its rights to do that today, so we'd better pass a law against it!".

interesting thought
written by bp, August 31, 2007 04:57 PM

Interesting thoughts Tim...but I think you are giving far too much credit to state senators. Comparing them to Hamilton. Really?

Do you honestly believe that is their point of view? I guess it's possible, though I'd say it's highly unlikely. If they felt that way, then where have they been for all the rights that have been taken from us? They need to speak up a bit more before I start buying your conclusion.

Rule Of Law
written by Brewskie, September 01, 2007 07:52 AM

In reality we really only need two more laws:

"If it's not expressly approved in the Constitution, Congress shall make no law"

And

"For every new law passed, five shall be removed"

Historical precedent
written by Jrock, September 06, 2007 01:44 PM

Simitian introduced similiar legislation last year and it was vetoed, so besides the nine there is also the one (Governor Schwarzenegger) who thought it was a bad idea to protect the citizens of California.

Also...
written by Jrock, September 06, 2007 01:50 PM

To Tim:
The law that passed was not specifically directed at the government, but more at private buisness, nursing homes and parents. We all know what happens when a laissez-faire economy is unleashed on the people: A concentration of power, and the people get screwed (or in this case implanted with RFID chips).