Reflection: The exploratory essay took me some time to get down. Initially I wrote a research essay. I had to redo it in order to make it an exploratory essay. This was a good learning experience for me.
Exploring the Implantable Chip
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” –Benjamin Franklin
“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”- Thomas Jefferson
In the late 16th century, the United States was founded on the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our founding fathers were weary of tyrannical government and abuse of power. This concern has not gone away with time. These two quotes paint the picture of how Americans have always been weary of things they believe will challenge their liberties. This idea applies today more than it ever has.
As Americans in this modern age, we are confronted with constant innovations and technological improvements. But when new technologies also pose a potential threat to our constitutional rights and liberties, we must decide if the benefits of the technology are worth our cherished liberties. Since 2001, the radio frequency identification tag or RFID chips, which are used in tracking merchandise and animals, have been been implanted in more and more human beings. Corporations and government agencies are interested in promoting the RFID Implant for medical, defense, and economic reasons just to name a few. With this information, I have stumbled into the dilemma of how will our society adapt to this new technology? How will it affect our liberties and is it worth the cost? If so, what will that cost be? Should we use this new technology? Under what conditions should it be used? In this essay, I explore what the RFID technology is and how it can be implemented. After much research, I will be able to conclude if it is something beneficial, or a danger to our rights.
The first article I read in my initial research was “Rfid: the Next Serious Threat to Privacy.” by Vance Lockton, a University of British Columbia grad student, majoring in computer science; and Richard S. Rosenberg, a book author and Computer Science Professor at University of British Columbia. In the article, the authors introduce RFID technology and its initial uses. RFID was first invented to identify Allied planes in WWII. The RFID chips being investigated in this paper are what are called passive RFID chips. They are used to receive and respond with radio signals when read by a RFID scanner. These chips are being used to track animals such as pets and livestock. Major companies like Verichip owned by Applied Digital Solutions are developing these chips for several purposes. Verichip is being marketed as medical device to store record and information. Corporations are also harnessing these chips for management of products. Walmart began labeling and tracking products with RFID technology in 2005 (Lockton and Rosenberg 222). This expanded the use of the chip, reduced the price, and upped the production. Some companies have even suggested putting chips in individual products they sell. Using chips to monitor customers has even already been done. The possibility of thieves using RFID recognition to identify valuables and possible victims is also discussed. The idea of violence to steal chips from victims is also discussed. In 2005, 160 Mexican government employees were chipped for security clearance (Lockton and Rosenburg 224). In 2004, the US government began putting RFID chips in passports for more security, but some are afraid that people could steal information this way by skimming the chips from a distance. The argument is made asking why is that necessary. The main reasoning behind this is that the government believed having RFID chip-carrying passports would make the passports harder to counterfeit.
Lockton and Rosenberg’s article affected my argument in the sense that it really informed me of the actual status of the chips themselves. Before, I knew about the tracking aspect of them like how they are used in livestock, but did not know about the application of these chips in official IDs such as passports and in the corporate world. In my understanding of how these chips work, using them for corporate reasons like tracking merchandise seems completely acceptable, and tracking livestock seems like an appropriate application for these as well. However, I begin to disagree with use of these chips in human beings. I think that use of the chips in humans would lead to corrupt use of the information and tracking ability in the chips. Also, I don’t see the RFID chips in American passports as necessary for security. I don’t see what benefit that would have if the passports were being used as they normally were. This leads me to think that the government is more interested in tracking more movements of citizens.
In the article “RFID Inside.” by, Kenneth R. Foster, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania and former president of the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology; and Jan Jaeger, a retired ER nurse and now an instructor at Penn School of Nursing. The authors discuss the idea of RFID chips becoming a reality in today’s society is discussed. But most importantly, the possible dilemmas of the use of RFID implants are discussed. One in particular that is of dire importance relates to a security firm in Ohio that required its employees to receive an RFID implant in order to work as identification. This level of identification was required in order to access very private security footage. The thinking is RFID identification implants will allow for only the intended individual to access confidential information. But Foster and Jaeger raise the question of who owns a chip that is implanted in a person, the corporation who required the chip or the individual who received the chip. This question leads to a larger issue. If a company owns an implant inside you, they own you. By having company property inside of an individual, this would limit their own rights and give an outside entity some amount of power over you. Another major field for RFID chips discussed by Foster and Jaeger was the medical field. In initial research of RFID implants, one will mostly find information about the medical side of the device. In 2004, the FDA approved the Verichip as the first human RFID Implant. It was meant to hold an identification number that when scanned, could pull up a medical file on that specific individual. The chip could allow access to health, physiological, and security information even if a person is unconscious (Foster & Jaeger 27). It has been suggested that the medical implant may be especially helpful for certain individuals like people with mental illnesses, Alzheimer’s patients, or people who cannot think or communicate properly (Foster& Jaeger 28). But what does the implant do that alternatives cannot? RFID bracelets or identification cards could offer just as much help as a chip. In fact, many researchers believe that the medical field is just one area of use for these chips. The use of implants is not very popular, but it is becoming more and more acceptable in the medical field. Also, they mention Verichip has also been lobbying to use the Chip in place of the military’s dog tags (Foster & Jaeger 27).
In my understanding of the ownership of the chip dilemma, corporations having ownership of the chip could implement a new kind of slavery. A kind of slavery where not only are individuals can be owned, but where an individual can be monitored 24/7 and have their identity and personal information held by people other than themselves. So this concept makes me even more skeptical of these implants in human beings. I had not yet considered the possibility of corporations abusing these chips to invade privacy. I think I had concentrated too much on being skeptical of the government and ignored other parties that would want peoples personal information and whereabouts. However, on the issue of using the chips in people with mental disabilities or people who cannot think clearly raised my interest. But this topic raises another issue completely. Where is the line drawn if these chips are used as a protective measure? Are there alternatives to a chip? Could the families of an Alzheimer’s patient put a transmitting device in a bracelet so it does not have to be intrusive? It may even serve better because that would not be a passive device. Foster and Jaeger’s article showed me the implications on the medical side in greater detail. I understand the concept and need for these chips. And having a data base of medical information would be a good thing. Now patients no matter where they are can be treated correctly according to their medical records without having to wait to receive them from another hospital. However, this brings me back to the slippery slope dilemma. Is this benefit worth it? What are the alternatives to the implant that can give us a similar endgame?
In “RFID Implants: Opportunities and Challenges for Identifying People” by Pawel Rotter of the European Commission, and Joint Research Center for Prospective Technilogical Studies; Barbara Daskala, of the European Network and Information Security Agency; and Ramon Compano, of the European Commission Joint Research Center. The authors describe the applications of RFID implants for identification and security purposes. They compare the chips to other biotech technologies such as eye scanners and finger print scanners. The RFID chips are more practical in the sense that people cannot lose them and it is a reliable method of security. They go on to describe how the public is very skeptical about implantable chips and that the majority of people appose them. But it has even been inferred by Rotter, Daskala and Compano that the medical field is just a stepping-stone in which RFID technology can expand as it becomes more publicly accepted (30).
I had not considered the idea of certain fields as stepping-stones. But that makes a lot of sense. Verichip first started in tracking livestock and expanded into the medical field. And from my other research, I found that RFID chips are already being used in tracking products of companies. This may support my slippery slope theory about the use of these chips. But this could also just be an example of how new technology spreads. I think that the prediction by the authors is very insightful and is a point that should be noted.
At this point, I am against the use of implantable RFID chips in people. I see the benefits of RFID chip technology and I think it should be utilized in business to track merchandise and product. It is also useful in tracking animals and non-human things. However, I am still skeptical of the government or corporations using chips to track people. I think that this could be an invasion of privacy. This leaves me the question of what solutions can we come up with that allow the benefits of these chips, while not invading the privacy of the people and violating our rights.
Works Cited
“A Quote by Benjamin Franklin.” Goodreads. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.
“Citation Machine Automatically Generates Citations in MLA, APA, Chicago, Turabian, and
Thousands More!” Citation Machine: Format & Generate Citations â“ APA, MLA, & Chicago. Web. 01 Mar. 2016.
Foster, Kenneth R., and Jan Jaeger. “RFID Inside.” IEEE Spectrum 44.3 (2007): 24-
Military & Government Collection. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.
Lockton, Vance, and Richard S. Rosenberg. “Rfid: the Next Serious Threat to Privacy.” Ethics
and Information Technology. 7.4 (2005): 221-231. Print.
Rotter, Paweł, Barbara Daskala, and Ramón Compañó. “Rfid Implants: Opportunities and
Challenges for Identifying People.” Ieee Technology & Society Magazine. 27.2 (2008). Print.
“The End of Democracy…(Quotation).” Www.monticello.org. Thomas Jefferson Foundation. Web.