Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wireless Contraception

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the just-connect-to-you-local-contraeptive-hotspot dept.

Medicine 302

Kittenman writes: The BBC is carrying information on a type of contraception (funded in part by Bill Gates) that takes the form of a microchip, inserted under the skin. The chip releases contraceptive hormones to the body until wirelessly advised not to do so. This device has several interesting applications and issues associated with it. The researchers are already working on making the device secure against unauthorized transmissions. There's also the issue of making it easier for governments to control population levels. The chip will be available from 2018. This correspondent will watch the issues with interest.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

yes but (0, Troll)

halfEvilTech (1171369) | about 4 months ago | (#47409317)

I bet Hobby Lobby will make sure it isn't covered... Afterall we can't have a corporations err person's religious rights trampled on.

Re:yes but (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409367)

Ah...I wondered how long a complete and total misunderstanding of the ruling would surface. Get a law degree, then get your head out of your ass, maybe you'll learn something.

but he already knows (0, Flamebait)

publiclurker (952615) | about 4 months ago | (#47409563)

that corporate whoring morons carrying this companies water are full of shit. what else does he need to know?

Re:but he already knows (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409753)

He needs to know how to read. Specifically he needs to read the court's decision in this case because what he's spouting is total ignorance of what was really decided and why.

Removing his head from where the sun don't shine would help too, but only as far as it might make it possible to READ THE DECISION.

Re:yes but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409797)

It didn't take half as long as the complete and total misrepresentation of the ruling surfaced. That was in the opinion itself, which just proves a law degree, let alone being on the bench of the Supreme Court, doesn't prevent you from sticking your own head up an ass.

Re:yes but (-1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 4 months ago | (#47409393)

Spoken like someone that doesnt know anything about the Hobby Lobby case other than what the hyper-reactionary and completely dishonest liberal propaganda machine started spewing the moment the ruling came.

letting government control population levels via that chip while you blather on about liberal talking points that so trivially demonstrate ignorance all by themselves.

Re:yes but (2, Funny)

benjfowler (239527) | about 4 months ago | (#47409459)

WTF? "hyper-reactionary" "liberal".

Sorry -- did I just find myself in a parallel universe?

Re:yes but (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409621)

Nope, not a parallel universe. To hear my liberal friends tell it, the supreme court ruled that Hobby Lobby has completely barred their employees from even looking at contraceptives and opened the door for any sort of flimsy religious excuse for any sort of employer abuse of employees. The reaction makes my conservative friends' Bengazi reactions look rational.

Re:yes but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409469)

Times like this sarcasm tags are helpful.

Re:yes but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409527)

What are you banging on about ?

spoken like a corporate whoring (1)

publiclurker (952615) | about 4 months ago | (#47409597)

idiot that feels that anything that lets you pretend to have significance by dragging women down to your shameful level is a good ting.

Re:spoken like a corporate whoring (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409947)

I'd love to put a hole in your head

Re:yes but (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409719)

Spoken like someone that doesnt know anything about the Hobby Lobby case other than what the hyper-reactionary and completely dishonest liberal propaganda machine started spewing the moment the ruling came.

The Hobby Lobby case was about a corporation demanding religious freedom to reject paying for the medical care of their employees based on the religious view of the company owners.

It's a terrible decision, as it means that somehow not only are corporations 'persons', but they have the religious freedom to impose their will on their employees.

This immediately led to companies saying they also want to claim the right to not hire LGBT people, against Federal laws, because they say so.

Sorry, this isn't 'hyper reactionary', this isn't 'liberal propaganda', this is entirely about the right of religious people to be able to discriminate based on their beliefs -- and somehow expecting it to remain illegal to discriminate against them.

If you think this is such a good ruling, wait until a Muslim business starts saying they don't want to follow laws which violate Sharia law, or that women are required to wear veils if they work for them,

No, this is about asshole Republicans and religious people deciding they should be exempt from the laws of civil society and be able to opt out.

It's you who has no idea of what that case was about.

Re:yes but (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 4 months ago | (#47409743)

It's a terrible decision, as it means that somehow not only are corporations 'persons', but they have the religious freedom to impose their will on their employees.

I rest my case.

Re:yes but (2, Insightful)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 4 months ago | (#47409985)

The Hobby Lobby case was about a corporation demanding religious freedom to reject paying for the medical care of their employees based on the religious view of the company owners.

It's a terrible decision, as it means that somehow not only are corporations 'persons', but they have the religious freedom to impose their will on their employees.

The Hobby Lobby case is/was about individual owners of a company not losing their rights just because they formed a corporation for tax or liability purposes. It treats these individuals just like they were still a sole proprietorship or partnership. Simply put, the decision says that if you form a business, you do not give up any rights regardless of the form of that business.

This immediately led to companies saying they also want to claim the right to not hire LGBT people, against Federal laws, because they say so.

That is really surprising. Do you have a citation to support that? I ask, because individuals before the Hobby Lobby case did not have a right to not hire LGBT, so the Hobby Lobby case has zero impact on the LGBT community. If something was discriminatory prior to Hobby Lobby for an individual to do, then it is still discriminatory post Hobby Lobby. Nothing has changed in that regard.

Sorry, this isn't 'hyper reactionary', this isn't 'liberal propaganda', this is entirely about the right of religious people to be able to discriminate based on their beliefs -- and somehow expecting it to remain illegal to discriminate against them.

If you think this is such a good ruling, wait until a Muslim business starts saying they don't want to follow laws which violate Sharia law, or that women are required to wear veils if they work for them,

No, this is about asshole Republicans and religious people deciding they should be exempt from the laws of civil society and be able to opt out.

It's you who has no idea of what that case was about.

Again, the Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with what you post. It was about not losing one's individual rights because of the way a business is organized. Of the 1,200 approved contraceptives on the market in the US, Hobby Lobby provides for 1,196 of them. How is that discrimination? To win it's case, over those four contraceptives, the government had to show there was no other reasonable way to provide them short of violating the owner's religious rights. That was not the case and the court said so. The Hobby Lobby case did not bestow religious freedoms on corporations. It did, however, keep the owners of those corporations, if fewer than five individuals from losing their religious freedoms.

Re:yes but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409471)

Hobby Lobby didn't have a problem with contraceptives they were okay with 16 that is currently on the market. They didn't want to support the last four drugs which are abortifacients. Anyways, the ruling was much more. You should read it carefully.

Re:yes but...yes in fact. (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 months ago | (#47409755)

It's about more than just "abortifacients". http://www.nationalreview.com/... [nationalreview.com] Except, the four methods Hobby Lobby objected to are not "abortifacients". http://www.newrepublic.com/art... [newrepublic.com] But I guess, if their faith tells them they're abortifacients, then abortifacients they shall be. Isn't that the whole point of the decision of the five (male) Supreme Court justices? And we already have cases being brought to use the Hobby Lobby precedent to allow all sorts of civil rights violations, nullification of laws, and even special exemption from taxation based on religious faith. It's going to be a few interesting years until Hobby Lobby is overturned, which it almost certainly will be, Hobby Lobby is the 21st century's Plessy v. Ferguson. But that's the whole point, right?

Re:yes but (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409531)

The ruling prevents people from being forced to pay for others to have contraception. It does not make it illegal or prevent people from buying their own. As the ruling also noted, the government itself could pay for it itself instead of forcing others to violate their religious convictions, but they didn't because it was politically expedient to do it this way. You don't have to agree with their beliefs to understand that forcing people to violate them simply because its expedient isn't a good thing.

But I suspect you won't understand unless someone passes a law forcing you to violate your convictions.

but of course you have no problem (1)

publiclurker (952615) | about 4 months ago | (#47409949)

with having other people pay for your Viagra and unnecessary wars. After all, you aren't a woman.

Re:but of course you have no problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409973)

No, but he is dickless, so there's that.

Re:yes but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409583)

I hope that contraception becomes ubiquitous enough that in future when we
do need a formula-fed moron like you, we have to make one in a test tube.
I hope your tubes are tied, pussy.

Re:yes but (1)

will_die (586523) | about 4 months ago | (#47409771)

And yet another example of some idiot who did not even read the basic parts of this case.

Yes, because that's what we need (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409323)

There's also the issue of making it easier for governments to control population levels.

Hmm (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409339)

Population control in the UK probably seems like a good idea in the minds of some. But I don't know how bad the hillbilly population is over there. Over stateside, yes it's certainly a problem. Both countries constantly have stories about welfare (benefits/entitlements) families with stupidly large families.

Re:Hmm (-1, Troll)

benjfowler (239527) | about 4 months ago | (#47409497)

It's really easy. Stop paying people to have kids. And bring in changes to turn kids from assets into liabilities -- works everywhere.

You'll get the usual left-wing hand-wringing about "child poverty" and "overcrowding" -- but the only people who are "overcrowded", are conservative Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims who can't keep their reactionary, undereducated dicks to themselves.

Reproduction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409727)

Unfortunately in the States, reproduction has become a very hot political topic.

Stop paying people to have kids.

I am not sure exactly what you are referring to.

Anyway, there is a free clinic [plannedparenthood.org] to help with reproduction and other health issues and contrary to what many folks believe, Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services. [plannedparenthood.org] . And contrary to what is heard in the media and on the pulpit, women are counseled - it's not spread your legs and suck it away.

But when you show up and see thick bullet proof glass, gated entries and threatening crowds, one may choose to do without their help. Many of these young women are scared (usually by overly strict "conservative Christian" parents). There was an abortion doc (it's been years and I can't remember his name nor google it because of all the propaganda out there) who would help these girls when he could and even put them up while they were pregnant so that they wouldn't feel they HAD to abort. He was murdered by a pro-lifer. Which is ironic since he saved quite a few babies.

There are not many places that offer those services for free and it is rare to get more from faith based charities than being preached about abstinence.

It disgusts me that here in the US, we have Third World - backward attitudes when it comes to sex and reproduction. Part of it is the misinformation that is constantly being spewed by people who are trying to get ratings on "conservative" media and folks with political agendas.

Never the less, we are reaping what we sow and I find myself being disgusted everyday by people - especially by people who claim to hold life "sacred".

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409747)

It's really easy. Stop paying people to have kids. And bring in changes to turn kids from assets into liabilities -- works everywhere.

You'll get the usual left-wing hand-wringing about "child poverty" and "overcrowding" -- but the only people who are "overcrowded", are conservative Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims who can't keep their reactionary, undereducated dicks to themselves.

Actually no. That won't work in this case.

The welfare family with a ton of kids has a ton of kids because they have bad impulse control not because they've done an analysis and determined that having an additional child is a rational choice for them (it's already a net financial loss to have a child).

These are the sort of people who will try to buy a x-box game with their food stamps (and will sell the food stamps at 50% value to get cash so they can buy the x-box), will repeatedly pawn a TV for drug money, then buy a new TV a week later only to pawn the new TV for drug money in a month.

Re:Hmm (2)

dmr001 (103373) | about 4 months ago | (#47409821)

Strictly speaking, in the US, we're not paying people to have kids but paying for people who have already had kids to have baby food and clothing and medical care. Even in places where people don't get government support for their kids, they still have plenty of kids - as I think you may be alluding to in your second paragraph but I confess confusion about how reactionary undereducated dicks are particular to Pakastani folks and not, say, Kentuckians.

Government-supported access to contraception is likely highly cost effective - it makes not just intuitive sense, but studies seem to bear this out [plosone.org] . Without all the bother of just letting teen moms and their homeless kids, you know, die in the streets and spread measles all around.

Male contraceptive already in use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409341)

It's also wireless and called...a keyboard.

Just ask my wife and unborn 18 children.

Re:Male contraceptive already in use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409423)

If I count my nights of porn-watching and self-masturbation, I'm probably over nine thousand unborn children.

Re:Male contraceptive already in use (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about 4 months ago | (#47409505)

Write-in entry: Google Glass.

Being a 'glasshole' makes one look like such a complete dork, that there's no way on Earth any woman would want to copulate with you.

Re:Male contraceptive already in use (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 months ago | (#47409845)

Another one is "Open Carry".

Something tells me these courageous members of a well-regulated militia aren't getting any.

http://www.westernjournalism.c... [westernjournalism.com]

http://www.cavemancircus.com/w... [cavemancircus.com]

http://localtvwtvr.files.wordp... [wordpress.com]

that's why the need the guns. (1)

publiclurker (952615) | about 4 months ago | (#47409991)

and why so many of them sleep with them in or next to their beds.

but I've seen women wearing them. (1)

publiclurker (952615) | about 4 months ago | (#47409981)

And men aren't really known for caring as much about how dorky a woman looks.

Security... (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 4 months ago | (#47409359)

Do you want to become pregnant because someone hacked your hormone implant?

I do not see this ending well.

Re:Security... (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 4 months ago | (#47409397)

There's currently no technology used in medicine because of the constant fear of it 'being hacked'.

Re:Security... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409661)

Like pacemakers?

Re:Security... (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 4 months ago | (#47409701)

And sarcasm detectors.

Re:Security... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409777)

Apologies. Mine must have been hacked.

Re:Security... (1)

Shados (741919) | about 4 months ago | (#47409443)

From what I gather, this thing is only as wireless as a QI charger is wireless. You basically need to touch it with the "remote" for it to work. If you're point blank range and know exactly where the chip is, you could have done a lot more than just hack the chip...

Re:Security... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409707)

Yeah, but what about the dishonest person you're sleeping with? They have ample time while you're sleeping to turn it off.
There have been documented cases of women going to the restroom and implanting themself from the used condom of their
boyfriend. (and fyi, the boyfriend proved it and still was found responsible for child support).
The reverse is probably not as common but there are probably still plenty of guys who want their wife to get pregnant when
the wife doesn't want to. Being in a dysfunctional relationship is probably the bigger deal but it still needs some security.
That being said, a simple 4 digit pin seems the simplest solution. It's still wireless except now it requires a remote and
a passkey that only the wearer knows.

Re:Security... (1)

Aryden (1872756) | about 4 months ago | (#47409807)

It stimulates hormone production. turning it off for a few hours after sex isn't going to cause a pregnancy as the hormones are still being produced. Now, if you turn it off one early morning, then shag it up for the next few days, yeah, you've got an issue.

How long until... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409361)

...this becomes mandatory in China?

Re:How long until... (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 4 months ago | (#47409375)

Or America?

Re:How long until... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409543)

No time soon.

The Republicans will be dead set against the technology existing at all s the debate will be over whether they can be illegalized at the federal level and aside from a straw man/slippery slope argument no one will seriously consider the possibility that they could be mandated for widespread use.

Re:How long until... (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 4 months ago | (#47409715)

and aside from a straw man/slippery slope argument no one will seriously consider the possibility that they could be mandated for widespread use.

Yes, just like when the government first started messing around with health insurance (tax exempt if the employer pays for it, large employers must pay for it, etc..) it was just a slippery that the government would eventually mandate that every person had health insurance.

So here we are.... using the "just a slippery slope" argument again?

Re:How long until... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409901)

And how many slippery slope arguments have you right wingers got completely wrong? Slippery slope arguments are all your party has to offer. Even the most reasonable reforms leads always lead totalitarian communism in your sick minds.

Hormones screw up women's bodies to much. (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 4 months ago | (#47409391)

What "they" need to develop is a chip that releases "sperm poison".

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much. (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 4 months ago | (#47409409)

What "they" need to develop is a chip that releases "sperm poison".

Or, you know, a sex education program that's not absolutely retarded.

This is, of course, assuming the end goal is limiting unwanted pregnancies.

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much. (0, Troll)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 4 months ago | (#47409501)

This is, of course, assuming the end goal is limiting unwanted pregnancies.

Doesnt matter what the motives are...what will it actually be used for?

Planned Parenthood chipping up as many poor people as they can, perhaps?

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much. (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 4 months ago | (#47409631)

Planned Parenthood chipping up as many poor people as they can, perhaps?

But that would reduce the Democrat Party's base, thus reducing PP's funding. (MOAR illegal immigration!)

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much. (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 4 months ago | (#47409685)

You think that they get funding from poor people?

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much. (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 4 months ago | (#47409761)

You think that they get funding from poor people?

Government, you ninny.

Anyway, I was being facetious, since the number of poor people is rising.

Re:Hormones screw up women's bodies to much. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409831)

That's what Obama claimed [washingtonpost.com] . Millions of small contributions from individuals add up, and it doesn't matter if some of that money comes from illegal aliens living on welfare, like his Aunt Zeituni

Google Glass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409403)

Wearing one of these? You ain't gettin' laid!

Re:Google Glass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409483)

OK google, upload porn shoot

Half-Life 2 anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409415)

I'm sorry, but I must ask, are any of the researchers named Dr Breen?

Good lord (4, Interesting)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about 4 months ago | (#47409421)

First the Nest thermostat is said to be enough to make the Stasi blush, then insurance companies are compared to the Panopticon and now a birth control device is supposedly a government plot to control population levels?

This is supposed to be news for nerds. Not news for delusional paranoiacs.

Re:Good lord (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 4 months ago | (#47409449)

This is supposed to be news for nerds. Not news for delusional paranoiacs.

Is there a difference?

Re:Good lord (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409507)

Because nerds have the ability to forsee the positives and negatives of technology.

Re:Good lord (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 months ago | (#47409765)

This is supposed to be news for nerds. Not news for delusional paranoiacs.

It's increasingly hard to tell the difference.

What would have been dismissed as fodder for paranoid people a decade or so ago, is pretty much common place these days.

Sadly, even the paranoids are all going "holy crap, have you seen this?"

Sometimes, reality is stranger than fiction (or delusion).

Re:Good lord (1)

jettoblack (683831) | about 4 months ago | (#47409823)

This is supposed to be news for nerds. Not news for delusional paranoiacs.

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

Downsides (1)

thoriumbr (1152281) | about 4 months ago | (#47409427)

I have read the same news from another source, and was discussing it with my coworkers. I can see at least four downsides:
1 - We still have to transpose a barrier on implanted chips. People don't like this idea.
2 - It can and will be interfered with, and make women pregnant when they don't want to. Even they trying to make the chip hard to interfere with, everybody working with tech knows that is not always possible. And a small chip on the hands of thousands of people will be a valuable target.
3 - It can malfunction. Like the above, things go wrong, and a recently implanted chip going crazy and releasing all its hormones on the body of a midterm pregnant woman will be nasty. It is made to not be removed even in the event of a pregnancy, so it's possible to happen.
4 - It can be damaged by an EMP pulse. If it's implanted on the arm, the body will get in contact with a lot of sources of electromagnetic radiation, like microwave ovens, cell phones and other transmitters, car ignition systems, and so on. Those sources can interfere with the chip.

Re:Downsides (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 4 months ago | (#47409573)

EMP pulse? What dystopian Matrix-like world do you live in? All of the electronics I have are just fine near microwaves, cell phones, car ignitions, etc. In fact all of those devices CONTAIN computer chips that seem to work fine right where they are.

Re:Downsides (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409709)

Pretty sure the rest of the paragraph made a point. The EMP is there for paranoia. Yet,I can see some government in Africa using it against protesters. But realistically, if they never used them against cellphones back when they had a real problem countering Twitter / social networks protest organizers... then it will be a long time before contraception threats are even on their radar.
In China, they'd probably want to dangle the opposite kind of threat if some EMP would work --making you sterile instead of needing them to police the 1 child policy

O Brave New World ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409433)

That has such people in it!

Let's call it the neo-malthusian belt.

Why? (2, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 4 months ago | (#47409435)

I mean, aside from trying to make Aldous Huxley's fantasy a reality, what's the friggin' point?

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409551)

With the USA's population as low as it is compared to India or China, we have the /luxury/ of not having to truly consider these inhuman methods. If our population was 10x what it was, I bet you'd change your tune.

Re:Why? (1)

will_die (586523) | about 4 months ago | (#47409725)

Because as the summary says it allows governments to control it. As opposed to other methods it would hard to remove without surgery and the government could control the passwords.

Re:Why? (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 4 months ago | (#47409865)

Because it isn't permanent sterilization, but it has essentially the same effect. Oral contraception or barrier devices don't work in many parts of the world.

Where is the increased correlation with eugenics? (1)

Valvar (3537021) | about 4 months ago | (#47409499)

If the government wanted to control population levles, then sure, this might be a good tool. But in itself it is only a slight improvement over existing methods, making it easier to micromanage population control. If an oppressive government wants to control the population, they already have the tools to do so. I don't see what this does to change that. What it might do is make it easier to do so clandestinely *in theory*, but in practice that case seems unlikely.

Population control, indeed (1)

Krishnoid (984597) | about 4 months ago | (#47409519)

I replied, "We could change it now. Robots are doing all the work. Human beings -- all human beings -- could now be on perpetual vacation. That's what bugs me. If society had been designed for it somehow, we could all be on vacation instead of on welfare. Everyone on the planet could be living in luxury. Instead, they are planning to kill us off. Did you hear that women were trying to drink the water out of the river? Some people think they're putting contraceptives in the water."

From Manna [marshallbrain.com] .

Straight from sci fi (1)

motorsabbath (243336) | about 4 months ago | (#47409545)

Straight from Hugh Howey's Silo series!

NSA will require a backdoor to that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409547)

...for your protection. Obviously.

Re:NSA will require a backdoor to that... (2)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 4 months ago | (#47409615)

Thankfully you still can't get pregnant when you use the back door.

Re:NSA will require a backdoor to that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409965)

My ass always hurts too much if I try that. What about yours?

If only... (2)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 4 months ago | (#47409627)

If only getting pregnant always required long, conscientious, deliberate effort, and avoiding pregnancy were the easy result of one night's drunken whim.

But that's now how it is, and this proposal won't make it so.

China and forced population control (1)

sageres (561626) | about 4 months ago | (#47409635)

"There's also the issue of making it easier for governments to control population levels. "
I can think of China... It has been widely known that besides "encouraging" abortions and sterilizations, there is a number of documented cases of forced abortions and sterilizations in the country. It would be too easy for them to implant the chip into the "people's offenders" or anyone who had at least one baby right at the birth clinics. Potential human rights violations made easy with technology.

Re:China and forced population control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409737)

Yep, no wonder it's backed by Bill Fucking Gates.

Re:China and forced population control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409773)

The problem with the oppressive government argument is there they generally have the power to do such things already. A surgical implant that can be turned off certainly does not give them any better control than just implementing one of the current surgical BC options that cannot be turned off. Oppressive states generally want to limit births and usually have no interest in being able to reverse the procedure easily. People having a BC permanently implanted generally do not wish to have any children in the near term so want the device on in the first place. If the device is suddenly 'unable' to be turned off they can always just have it removed.

New Meaning to Holes in Condems (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | about 4 months ago | (#47409643)

As far back as I can remember there has always been fear or concern about a guy who wants to knock up a girl poking holes in the condom, or a girl who wants to get pregnant poking holes in the condom. Now with this chip you have a form of birth control that poking holes is as simple as finding the frequency it's on to turn it off. Now instead of worry that your partner screwing with you now you have to worry about a third party. Neighbor that doesn't believe in birth control builds a device to turn yours off. Parents tired of waiting for grandchildren buy said device. The list goes on and on. At least with condoms and the pill I just have to trust my partner, and maybe if I don't do a visual inspection. This is as bad of an idea as people who listen to others about what makes good lubes for condoms when they get told an oil based lube is good when in reality it's something that would really weaken, and increase the likelihood of it breaking, but in this case they don't have to be telling you lies to get you pregnant. They just have to be malicious enough.

Re:New Meaning to Holes in Condems (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 4 months ago | (#47409653)

You can worry all you want about this stuff. You can also worry about alien abduction. It still doesn't make it likely, or even possible.

Interesting idea but likely horrific in practice.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409659)

Putting aside concerns about how this technology could be abused by government, it's hard to imagine them being able to design security protocols that will hold up for 16 years. Who wants a device implanted in your BODY that releases chemicals that is most likely to be hackable before it is ultimate removed?

I think women are better served by birth control without microchips that have shorter shelf lives.

Re:Interesting idea but likely horrific in practic (1)

dmr001 (103373) | about 4 months ago | (#47409899)

I think you're probably right in a lot of cases, but what I think this proposal is getting at is that right now we have a single contraceptive implant on the market that needs to be swapped out every 3 years. And, swapping it out means numbing up the area (which smarts), making a 1 cm incision with an 11 blade and fishing around with mosquito clamps to get the Nexplanon out which is often encapsulated with connective tissue and it doesn't want to come out, then injecting another one in. What if it could be turned on and off according to whether the woman wanted to have kids or was abstinent for awhile, so then we can avoid excess poking and prodding and hormones? If we could make that secure, would it be worth it? The cost of the Nexplanon in the US isn't much related to its materials (perhaps $5) as to the research costs and insurance and pharmaceutical company marble toilets with gold handles ($700). Couldn't an electronic Nexplanon with extended duration reasonably be cost effective if we can avoid the excess minor surgery, physician visits, and unintended babies?

Re:Interesting idea but likely horrific in practic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409937)

Putting aside concerns about how this technology could be abused by government, it's hard to imagine them being able to design security protocols that will hold up for 16 years. Who wants a device implanted in your BODY that releases chemicals that is most likely to be hackable before it is ultimate removed?

I think women are better served by birth control without microchips that have shorter shelf lives.

Every chip and it's controller are programmed with a one time pad which it uses to authenticate commands sent to it. the chip ignores all commands that don't decode from its current place in the one time pad, and if it exhausts it's one time pad all future signals are responded to with "contact your medical service provider".

That'll hold up forever. If you're toggling the chip frequently you might manage to exhaust the crypto but then you go to the doctor and get a new chip.

Chances are the biology will render it obsolete before the crypto does (new drugs, menopause, etc.)

Read-Only Access to Avoid Paternity (3, Interesting)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 4 months ago | (#47409689)

I think it would be great to have a phone app that tells me whether the women I have just me in a bar has an operational chip implanted. Then I would not have to trust her saying "I'm safe" or that the condom will malfunction.

Re:Read-Only Access to Avoid Paternity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409859)

That doesn't prevent you from getting herpes.

Rich People and Population Control (1)

TheNarrator (200498) | about 4 months ago | (#47409717)

It seems like if there's one issue that rich people all over the world are throughly obsessed with, it's population control. It's all wrapped up with the future being dominated by visions of eco-doom (e.g Global Warming/Overpopulation/Peak Oil). Nobody can see a different future. It's pathetic.

Re:Rich People and Population Control (2)

tomhath (637240) | about 4 months ago | (#47409895)

Population control is far better than the other alternatives (War, Famine, or Disease).

Why wireless (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409733)

If the chip is under the skin, it should be pretty trivial to remove when need be. Until then it could function perfectly well without the wireless connection. So why bother with the extra energy drain, complexity, and reliability issues? Another overdesigned solution looking for a problem.

Needs FDA *AND* NSA approvals will be required (2)

sehlat (180760) | about 4 months ago | (#47409805)

"Then we have secure encryption. That prevents someone from trying to interpret or intervene between the communications."

The NSA will want a backdoor.

Re:Needs FDA *AND* NSA approvals will be required (1)

jargonburn (1950578) | about 4 months ago | (#47409939)

The NSA will want a backdoor.

Then the NSA should just use the backdoor.

One word (1)

TheCrig (3178) | about 4 months ago | (#47409811)

Wool.

Hugh Howey strikes again.

It's a solution looking for a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409827)

If our issue is that we lack the funding to offer contraception to everyone that needs it - how is "making contraception more complicated and expensive" going to help with that issue?

Answers on a postcard to:
185 Unnecessary Tech Blvd,
Unnecessaryville, TN 37010

Re:It's a solution looking for a problem (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 4 months ago | (#47409971)

Where did you see "complicated and expensive"? Get the implant once and forget it, unlike every other form available.

"The implant can be used to deliver other drugs." (1)

sehlat (180760) | about 4 months ago | (#47409879)

So in the future, everybody is required to be implanted with this gadget -- loaded with tranquilizers. The government has the activation key, no skin contact required, and if a demonstration or anything else gets "out of hand" the code gets broadcast, the "insurgents" go off into la-la land, and they send in the street sweepers to collect them.

Forget the tinfoil hat. Where's my tinfoil armor?

Help me find my keys and we'll drive out (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 months ago | (#47409887)

I hope Bill Gates is planning to include Kinect technology in a diaphragm.

I'm not going to read TFA, but in my mind, that's totally what's going to happen. I'm boggled by the possibilities.

As opposed to ... *wired* contraception? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409891)

Honestly, *wired* contraception seems like it's something I would have noticed by now. But, I am posting on Slashdot...

incentive to hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47409959)

The only person i could think of that would have an incentive to hack this would be the father in order to turn it back on.

Why contraception (1)

NotInHere (3654617) | about 4 months ago | (#47409987)

This chip can be very useful for people who have to take in stuff regularly, like diabetes patients, for medical reasons. No insulin syringe into the leg needed, a simple app on the watch of a diabetes patient is enough. If it has direct access to blood, which I doubt, the chip can even perhaps detect too high blood sugar and automatically react, replacing the function of a pancreas.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?