It's basically an injected radio tag. A serial number tattooed throughout your body.
Even that wouldn't be feasible, an RFID tag is a passive device requiring input from an antenna, it modifies the signal based on its coding and relays it back. To get anything meaningful beyond a very short string of characters you'd want to use NFC. However, NFC uses a high frequency; high frequencies are much more easily blocked by water which drastically reduces the read range to a few millimeters for a subdermal implant.
To track individuals it would be significantly less costly and suspicious by installing cameras in cities and on roadways or by simply keeping track of cellphones using any number of backdoor coded into them.
While I have little doubt these nanoparticles have other potential intended uses. The whole radio tag thing is indeed accurate. Perhaps a more accurate analogy is in order. When some materials are exposed to UV light they absorb it then emit another color of light. This is how you get blacklight paint. This I believe, absorbs a certain (set of) frequency(s) and then emits a longer wavelength, a new color. The intensity and perhaps "color" will vary from person to person dependant upon method of manufacture, dose, individual biological response, etc. Basically color coding us either in groups or potentially as individuals.
Yes cameras would be easier but, there easy ways to defeat those and I bet that the powers that be were not thinking we would even find out about this yet alone understand it. They really do think we are that stupid. Also, ¿Por qué no los dos? Why not both? Wouldn't you cover all the perceived bases?
No, again it's simply not feasible to even attempt to track people with a subdermal implant; there are way too many flaws with the idea.
(post is archived)