Well IANAL and you’re probably a lot more knowledgeable than I am on the subject. But my line of thinking was along the functional aspect of things: removing a bullet doesn’t make the host of the bullet less functional. Remove someone’s implant however and they may not be able to open their front door or start their car. You could even play the disability card and argue that the person has wrist problems and finds it easier to present their implant against a reader than turn a key in a lock, or even fish a fob out of their pocket. Or they may be older and forgetful, and an implant is something they never lose. Hell, I’m considering proposing it to my 75-year-old mom who constantly loses her house keys…
So yeah, I suppose a judge may decide that ordering the removal of an implant is worth doing despite the loss of functionality. But the fact remains that doing so does impose a functional penality to the implantee, and possibly lowers significantly their quality of life depending on the circumstances. And it seems to me that that may be argued against fairly convincingly by a competent lawyer.
@amal I’m familiar with the cases you are citing. In one the bullet wasn’t removed do to it being up against the spine I believe, surgery was considered to dangerous to extract.
@anon3825968 I like the argument of loss of functionality, it would have to be written well but it’s very compelling.
true, but it would be irrelevant if the subject was in custody… you’re not going to unlock your phone or access your front door if you’re being held… so it would depend on the circumstances of course.
Yeah, but you would also run into the issue of what about if the person was innocent? Then they have removed the ability of the person to do something that they could before.
I think the argument that it is a part of you is probably the best argument, like forcing someone to unlock a phone with fingerprint or iris.
Your best safety option with dumb, non-crypto chips is obscurity: don’t tell your bed buddy you have chips, and if they know, don’t tell them what the chips are and where they are exactly. Also make sure they’re not knowledgeable about RFID and own a suitable reader: there’s just enough of a learning curve, and in the case of LF chips, a fair level of geekiness and investment in the suitable hardware, to read a chip off of someone’s hand and clone it.
We have had some judgment stating that Defendants can not force me to hand over keys inside me even keys that are for the login to the security cameras in which the actions and audio were recorded on, which defendants own. I was given admin duties for the said company and there was no policy against potentially not handing over keys.
There is a case involving preexisting penile pearling and forced removal (via retribution) while in prison. I’ll have to find it again. The argument is that he came into prison with it already done, and while they forced him to remove it, using in prison disciplinary action, they were out of jurisdiction thanks to bodily autonomy laws
It would be a really cool thing if I could register my ID as officially a cyborg.
As well. I think it’d be extremely important that this become the beginning of Cyborg rights. That we have protections to prevent abuse in the future.
One man was actually able to do this - Neil Harbisson was allowed to wear his cyborg “eye” antenna on the photo for his passport and was officially recognized as a cyborg by a government. Still quite a difference to an implanted chip, but hey, it’s possible at least
I’m not too sure about that. It’s kind of like the few people who managed to get their ID photos taken with a colander on their head, on the grounds that it’s a protected religious headgear (pastafarian). Sure they’re right, and sure they point out the absurdity of legally protecting anything religious. But at the end of the day, the reality is that most people view them as idiots who waste everybody’s time over pointless technicalities.
I think it really depends on where all that stuff is going… It might be good to have a legally accepted base to work on, so to say. I can only compare this to bodymods, for there are currently several cases around the world, where the more unusual stuff (implants, tongue splitting etc…) gets banned, people actually are going to jail for doing this (to customers who were satisfied with everything, not because something went wrong!), so it might be good to have laws that simply say that all that stuff is okay, as it enhances your body - either funcional or aesthetical.
It might be just another aspect of body autonomy, in a way, and I would definitely support that.
Have to research that, the case I was referring to was Dr. Evil in Great Britain… the judges said that it was “not in public interest that a person could wound another for no good reason”… goddamn idiots. He did extreme stuff, but he did nothing wrong (meaning, no drama or infections or whatever)
The BBC basically had a journalist pose as someone interested in a split, then crammed all kinds of recording devices in/on themselves to show that he was using anesthetic illegally.
Sigh. Makes me pretty sad / angry… things like these should be allowed if hygiene etc. are fine. It’s okay to modify your body to have silly great breasts, but not a split tongue… morons.
Simply let the government take care that the studios and procedures are clean, that the people there know what they’re doing, and everything would be fine.
I don’t know if those damned journalists even consider what amount of damage they’re inflicting, to single people and the scene as a whole…
Couldn’t have happened to a more fitting person if you ask me (don’t ask). Suffice to say, he’s not a “friend of Dangerous Things”. After a protracted dispute with him because he wanted exclusive rights to be the only artist to sell or work with the m31 magnet (before failures took them off the market), he ended things by telling me “Biohackers are trash and should stay out of our industry.”
