[A] report noted that the chip is expected to remain viable for at least 16 years once implanted.
While the "target" population is poor, third-world women, such technology is, of course, ripe for abuse. After all, think about it: If that demographic is the primary target, why would the chips need to be encrypted? How many third-world populations have within their midst the technological capability or the power to resist?
When he began Microsoft, Bill Gates likely never thought he'd become rich enough to hold the power of life in his hands. Talk about your "evil corporations."
The sourced article says that the encryption is meant to prevent hackers or cybercriminals from accessing the device. Robert Langer says the chips could hit the market in 2018.
Additionally: This amazing remote-controlled contraceptive microchip you implant under your skin is the future of medicine [Washington Post] (July 17, 2014)
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 24 2015, @06:42PM
Compare to the original submission, which was just the text pasted from natural news. I have balanced it significantly by adding the facts.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TrumpetPower! on Friday July 24 2015, @06:50PM
But why leave any of the bullshit in at all? Couldn't you just link directly to either the Gates Foundation or non-nutjob coverage? Maybe even a peer-reviewed article or FDA approval documentation or the like?
I'd think this technology would be of huge, perhaps even bigger, interest in the West, too. Imagine girls getting these things just before menarche, a replacement at about college age, and being able to temporarily switch it off with a simple trip to the doctor any time they decide they really do want to get pregnant. The developing world is struggling with STDs as much as they are population; free condoms on every street corner would be the better answer there, at least until they get transmission rates under control.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 24 2015, @07:04PM
"either the Gates Foundation or non-nutjob coverage"
I'm glad that you distinguished between Gates and non-nutjobs.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday July 24 2015, @06:51PM
Yeah, thanks for that. That's the kind of editorial work that makes sites better. I'm pretty sure that other site would've just dumped it as is.