RFID Implants: The Benefits vs. the Dangers
Frank Swain, a
British freelance writer, recently wrote an essay published online by the BBC
Future Science website entitled: “Why I want a microchip implant.” Like upwards
of 10 million Londoners, Swain uses his Oyster card — a credit card-sized
smartcard that contains an embedded RFID chip — to pay his fare on public
transit such as the Underground and buses within Greater London.
Swain had even
lined up a former Royal Marines medic willing to implant the chip in his hand,
but he could not obtain the high-grade silicone needed coat the chip and
prevent an adverse reaction with his own body. And so his dream of becoming a
bionic walking credit card was thwarted!
Swain wrote about
Amal Graafstra, a self-described “adventure technologist” and founder of
Dangerous Things, a Seattle company that specializes in RFID implants.
Graafstra has implants in his hands that he uses to unlock his door, start his
motorcycle, and log in to his computer.
While acknowledging
that for many people, “the idea of implanting themselves with microchips may conjure
up spectres of surveillance and totalitarian control,” Swain apparently accepts
Graafsta’s dismissal of such concerns: “Every Hollywood movie has told them
that implants are for tracking people. People don’t get that it's the same
exact technology as the card in your wallet. When someone uses a credit card,
wireless or not, they are tracked because several other corporations know who
they are, when they purchased, how much they spent, and where they spent it.”
While it may be
true that every electronic transaction allows the user to be tracked (as is
regularly demonstrated on crime shows such as NCIS, Criminal Minds, and Law and Order) an oppressive
government would find it easier to track an individual with a data chip
imbedded in his body, instead of a card that can easily be disposed of.
Swain writes:
“Ultimately, implanted microchips offer a way to make your physical body
machine-readable.” Observing that London’s transport authority now allows
people to ride the subways and buses using bank cards, he notes: “It marks the
beginnings of a slow move toward a world where everything will be accessed from
a single RFID microchip. If that day comes, I can’t think of a safer place to
keep it than inside my own body.”
It seems that Swain
has not thought this process all the way through. Would not making one's
physical body “machine readable” allow any future totalitarian entity to
monitor the whereabouts of everyone implanted with an RFID? Not even the
Thought Police in 1984 possessed such capabilities!
Since British
scientist Kevin Warwick had an RFID implanted under his skin in 1998 in an
experiment that allowed him to control lights, doors, heaters, and other
devices, many individuals have expressed concerns about the potential abuse of
such implants, regardless of what beneficial uses they may have.
VeriChip (later
PositiveID, now VeriTeQ) was the first company to obtain a license from the FDA
to implant their RFID chips in willing patients in 2004. The procedure was
promoted with the benefit that the devices could help doctors verify a
patient’s medical information, particularly in emergency room situations.
However, in a
letter to the Digital Angel Corporation on October 12, 2004, the FDA stated
several risks associated with the VeriChip device:
The potential risks
to health associated with the device are: adverse tissue reaction; migration of
implanted transponder; compromised information security; failure of implanted
transponder; failure of inserter; failure of electronic scanner;
electromagnetic interference; electrical hazards; magnetic resonance imaging
incompatibility; and needle stick.
The manufacturer
also marketed the implant as a way to restrict access to secure facilities such
as power plants, but it was later demonstrated that the 16-digit ID number
contained in an RFID implant could be obtained and cloned using a hand-held
scanner.
Beyond the physical
and security risks associated with the implants, the ultimate danger is that —
in the wrong hands — they may constitute a real threat to the level of personal
privacy that Americans have expected since the Fourth Amendment first
prohibited unreasonable search. A key factor in deciding how intrusive such
searches might become is whether or not the decision to have the RFID implanted
is voluntary or mandatory. Even if an individual voluntarily agrees to have a
chip implanted, however, he should consider that a government entity might be
able to collect data from the RFID without his knowledge.
AP writer Todd
Lewan noted as far back as 2007 that civil libertarians and Christian
conservatives were warning that RFIDs “would soon enable the government to
‘frisk’ citizens electronically — an invisible, undetectable search performed
by readers posted at ‘hotspots’ along roadsides and in pedestrian areas.”
Lewan also reported
that the use of electronic microchips was proliferating, first being used to
track livestock, fish, dogs, cats, and racehorses, and finally a company called
CityWatcher.com, which provided surveillance equipment, had RFIDs implanted in
two of its employees. The company’s CEO, Sean Darks, dismissed suggestions that
there was anything wrong with the procedure by asserting that his employees had
volunteered for the procedure, saying: “You would think that we were going
around putting chips in people by force and that’s not the case at all.”
But Katherine
Albrecht, a privacy advocate specializing in consumer education and RFID
technology, suggested that “suggestions” coming from higher ups were not always
so voluntary. “Ultimately,” said Albrecht “the fear is that the government or
your employer might someday say, ‘Take a chip or starve.’ ”
Thanks to the
media’s exposure of the threat to our privacy and freedom that the widespread
use of RFID implants in humans would present, many Americans are prepared to
oppose this dangerous practice.
Pro: RFID Implants bring more benefits
Con: RFID Implants bring more risks