I have an idea for a website, someone please do it.
Just something simple that letâs you enter the books youâve read and rate them. Then, based on that info, gives you reccomended reads.
A. It needs to be more than just âbooks like thisâ, some kind of defining what a personâs tastes are, and what fits into that. Like dating, but for books.
B. Could probably be cash positive just from Amazon comissions.
GO.
(oh, and donât be creepy on the personal data / tracking / social account tie-ins.)
Yep. Had a call with Rep Thomas yesterday and trying to follow up today but phone tag annoying and itâs a bit late.. unlikely to have any changes made to the bill before it passes, but will try anyway.
I find it sad that they did not think of the opposite as well, that employers may not require employees to have implants removed⊠Ok, magnets could be a problem if youâre looking for someone whoâs going to work near an MRI machine but similar problems apply to peacemakers and orthopedic nails.
And the wording looks vague. Can a company get into trouble for stating that they are willing to give away free implants or offering to add existing ones to their access control system?
âMicrochipâ means a product, device, or technology that is subcutaneously implanted in the body of an individual and contains a
unique identification number and personal information that can be
noninvasively retrieved or transmitted with an external scanning
device.
What about a Desfire with the random UID feature enabled? Or if personal information isnât stored on the chip? Thatâs not a âmicrochipâ according to that bill, right?
Like most bills, I can understand the idea (or maybe Iâm giving too much credit). Someone wanted a bill that says employers canât force an employee to get an implant, so they ask their representative to make a law. The either later down the line or even the representative themselves twist or add language.
The fact that employers cant even offer it to employees is the concern, imo.
Seems pretty standard for tech legislation, not understanding the fundamentals.
Actually i find the least researched bills are actually introduced by the âlawmakerâ themselves with no outside impetus at all. That was the case here.. Brianna Taylor thought to herself whatever she thought.. maybe she saw a movie with a microchip in it.. maybe she looked at all the other similar, poorly microchipping worded laws that passed in other states.. who knows what she thought, but she thought it and introduced this bill herself.
As of early 2026, at least 13-14 US states have enacted anti-microchipping
laws. The exact count varies slightly by source depending on how they
categorize the laws.
States with Enacted Laws
State
Year
Statute
Scope
Wisconsin
2006
Wis. Stat. 146.25
Bans mandatory employer implants
North Dakota
2007
N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-06
Bans mandatory implants
California
2007
Cal. Civ. Code 52.7
Bans mandatory implants
Oklahoma
~2008
Okla. Stat. tit. 63, 1-1430
Bans mandatory implants
Missouri
~2008
Mo. Rev. Stat. 285.035
Bans mandatory employer implants
Maryland
â
Md. Code Ann. 20-1902
Bans mandatory employer implants
New Hampshire
â
â
Bans mandatory implants
Utah
â
â
Bans mandatory implants
Arkansas
2019
Act 516
Bans mandatory employer implants
Montana
2019
S.B. 286
Requires written employee consent; removal on request
Nevada
2019
AB 226
Most restrictive â bans even voluntary implantation programs
Indiana
2021
â
Bans mandatory implants
Alabama
2023
â
Bans involuntary implants; violation is a Class D felony
Mississippi
2024
SB 2088
Bans coercion/threats; employers must cover removal costs
Notable Details
Nevada stands alone as the most extreme. AB 226 bans not only mandatory
implantation but also voluntary implantation programs. Violation is a
Category C felony.
Alabama carries one of the harshest penalties at a Class D felony.
Montana takes a consent-based approach: employers can implant chips but
must get written permission, and the chip must be removed on request or when
employment ends. employee may elect to retain chip post-employment at own cost.
Most other states simply prohibit employers from requiring implants as a
condition of employment.
Pending Legislation
Bills were pending or introduced in Iowa, New Jersey, Tennessee,
and Washington (HB 2303) that would establish similar bans. Wyoming
considered but defeated a ban in 2023.
No US employer is currently known to require microchip implants. These are all
preemptive bans.
I mean, a card or fob is significantly cheaper than anything that you sell. And most companies donât even know that implants are an alternative. So itâs more common for cyborgs to freak out the security people at work by asking them to enrollment their handsâŠ
But there have been a few posts of people who have been bullied towards getting implants removed. And one or two people who actually had to get them removedâŠ
And I almost forgot that having someone install an app on their phone is free. And biometrics are convenient enough for most people in management even if implants are way betterâŠ
Iâm with you, I get banning employers from forcing it on people who donât want it. It needs to be a personal freedom/decision. But banning it altogether is ridiculous
Thanks, @amal for the list. Do we have a thread to keep track of this?
Itâs similar to the recent regulation on 3D printer âŠ
This kinda thing is super common in poorly thought out legislation.
When Kansas first passed a law for concealed carry, those people who were opposed were somewhat mollified by a line that allowed you to ban concealed carry inside your own buildings.
There was a major shitstorm when Boeing tried to fire some people (with concealed carry permits) who brought guns to work, but left them locked in their cars.
After it went to court it was ruled that because the law clearly stated they could ban inside the building, then it was directly inferred that they could not ban outside the building.
Whatever your feelings about guns, I think a few college level courses in contract law ought to be mandatory before youâre allowed to actually write/propose a law.
