The first steps to a horror scenario are being taken in the most innocent of ways. People allowing themselves to be implanted with a chip, which carries data about them - apparently in the elbow. This data would then be help full in hospitals in the case someone has an accident while being naked and unidentifiable (presumably). What if the elbow is ripped away in the accident, put a chip in every limb ?
Aren't there other ways that extremely paranoid people can make their data be known at hospitals ? A card ? A chip-in-a-ring ? A finger print scan combined with a file in the hospital computers ? There are so many ways for this, and so much less degrading to the human body. Also less of a threat for human rights and turning it into a weapon dangers, as well as accidental infections.
I'll take Einstein's advice in the reverse ...
If A equals success, then the formula is A = X + Y + Z. X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut. -- Albert Einstein
But under protest. If you haven't slept for 3 days, aren't eating properly and are franticly searching for "the hidden truth" of whatever ... please come back later, take a hot chocolate if possible, and go to bed. Repeat a couple of times. No, most doctors and nurses are fine people, don't worry about them. Sickness is much more of a threat. :-)
A reason to reject mass implanted high-technology that seems to be somewhat ignored (the focus seems to be on identity) is that it can be manufactured to act on the body, in ways that are practically impossible to detect before insertion. Even if one can take apart one to show it is harmless, this does not say whether the next one will be of the exact same design, and whether newly manufactured series will always all be of a harmless design. Worse is that it is probably impossible to definitely determine when something is harmless, to set standards for that. The reason is the rapid evolving of technology. Even if practically possible for a manufacturer, it is impossible for a casual recipient. Not all distributed chips may need to be active, political distinctions could be made, to reduce the threat of exposure. Rejecting them all means the active ones if any, also fall out.
Once an high-technological implant is inserted of an active design, certain God-like control is handed to the persons that controls a weapon implant. The control easily includes the ability to kill persons wherever they are, by pressing a button; and other interesting things. Releasing whatever chemical compounds, ranging from lethal poisons, to cancer inducing substances/viruses, to drugs that make a person go crazy or feel pain, etc etc etc. There is obviously no limit to the possibilities. Such scenario's have been played out in movies already, but still chips are being implanted in humans.
Obvious as this is, I thought it would be a good thing to say given the level of trust people seem to have in voting machines, seemingly because they are high-technology. This same naivety might be transported to the area of implanted computers (chips). The best way to defend itself against these things, is to learn some things about computers before trusting them blindly (install Linux !). The potential danger of remote-controlled implants may have gotten little attention so far, perhaps because it wasn't really possible before. Perhaps because certain religious texts focus on identity, rather then weapon. But it will be possible, and already is possible. The combination of micro mechanical motors, (molecular) biology, and semi-conductor technology, means the limits are anyones guess. Sizes will be shrinking, possibilities increasing.
Ask yourself: why shouldn't I buy my own ring, and ask the chip to be embedded on top of it (away from the skin). Why shouldn't my fingerprint be enough; or why not wear a bracelet or necklace, if one really wants to have ID information that is hard to separate from the body during an accident or some kind of disaster. There is a danger that the power to build and distribute active chips (selectively) can be used in chemical ways against the recipients. This danger is probably very much reduced, if the wearer purchases the chip, and embeds it into something they have purchased and/or build (verified) separately. I doubt very much such a chip could in such a case do any damage at all, except being used as a tracking device. That would also be much less of a threat if carried separately from the body, because one could part from the device at any moment.
What is the point of implanted chips in humans ? Yes, it really is happening, believe it or not. The technology is being used and undergoes development. This should be rejected for casual reasons, especially the "implanted" part.
Disclaim: There can be specialized medical reasons for implants, in which case it is probably fine, and not a political instrument. A disease can obviously be more of a threat then an implant itself. But if all newborns must be implanted with a chip, the only reason I can think of for this, is turning into a weapon of the implant with `ID' as a smoke screen story. There are hardly any genuine ID reasons that can warrant implanted high technology. It is just too dangerous (IMHO).
Presumably there will need to be some catastrophe that can be used to rush such a measure through, because of the high level of resistance against these things. This resistance should be cultivated IMHO, expanded. Better safe then sorry. The power to control life/death with a simple weapon is any dictator's dream. It may tip the balance of power between people to such an extend, that a class society could be instituted that would be extremely hard to overcome. In the past, the difference in power between a worker/slave and a master has been marginal (sword and arrow versus stick and stone), it affords a level of primitive democracy, even under the worst conditions.
In this case just the "threat", the possibility even if just imagined, that "you" are implanted with remotely controlled chips, can alter the outcome of democratic polling. If you think that you might come under Trojan Horse attack from your implant, which is technically possible, if you believe you might suddenly fall dead from some mysterious illness if you choose something you believe might not be to the liking of the kind of people that might control your implant, then you are far more likely not to go against the kind of people you suspect of being able to control your implant. Your idea about what is in your self-interest can change accordingly this threat. By definition the people who control implants will not be moral people, and therefore the effect of this fear would always be morally negative and promoting tyranny, since that is what criminal people tend to want: money and power, and you as a slave. Even if they don't (in theory, but of course they would), it will probably be the (correct) presumption and therefore work to that end. All may then appear nice and democratic on the surface, but democracy would be faced with one more manipulative effect: the fear for the people who might control implanted chips - even if they actually don't - , in case it is a weapon and not as advertised. You can practically never be absolutely sure that it isn't, and hence your psyche would probably sense some fear that it could be, probably altering the direction of your will. Another factor in the equation that determines your choice, a factor you would probably want to do without, something that does not work in your favor.