Chipping Away at Privacy Fears

This month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a microchip that can be implanted in humans to provide access to medical records. Privacy regulation advocates were predictably horrified, but the chip does not create the privacy crisis some might imagine.

The VeriChip, made by Applied Digital Systems, is an implantable radio frequency identification device (RFID). RFID chips listen for a radio query and respond by transmitting their unique code. In the case of medical records, the code is compared with a database that will have the patient’s critical information, such as allergies and other medical conditions. Aside from this use, RFID is being deployed in many other instances as well.

Wal-Mart and other companies are planning to use RFID to replace product bar codes, thereby increasing efficiency, reducing theft, and cutting costs. Drivers using automated toll cards are already using the technology, as are pet owners who have “chipped” their pets in case they get lost.

Big Brother

Though RFID technology can save money, time and lives, when it comes to implanting it in grandma’s arm to make sure doctors know exactly what to do when she shows up unconscious at the hospital, the “creepy factor” arises. Privacy regulation advocates argue that implanting chips in humans will bring about an Orwellian state, and some apocalyptic types see it as the “mark of the beast.”

While the issue is a rhetorical magnet, there are reasons why this private use of technology does not in itself threaten privacy and may, in fact, help to protect it in the long run.

First, no one is forcing people to get chipped. Implanting the rice-sized chip is a voluntary action, and the product is provided by a private company. As long as government is not forcing anyone to get the chips, claims of privacy violations are about as compelling as arguments that reality TV violates the privacy of its participants.

Privacy Protection

If so-called privacy advocates want to get serious about protecting privacy, they should direct more of their attention toward preventing the forcible collection of biometric data by government, such as the plan outlined in proposition 69 on the California ballot. Prop 69 would forcibly take DNA samples from anyone arrested on suspicion of committing a felony, even if the charges are dropped or the person is found innocent.

According to the ACLU, more than 50,000 Californians get arrested each year but are never charged with a crime. This is a case in which the efficiency of technology is unfortunately tempting lawmakers to skip important traditional protections, like the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty.

Voluntary, Temporary

Once the government takes biometric data, it will always have it, but the implantable RFID chip can be easily removed — just ask patrons of the Baja Beach Club in Barcelona where the microchip is used as a debit card to pay for drinks. Thevoluntary and temporary nature of the chip is why a privacy implosion is not imminent, but the fact that it’s being used in the private sphere may have the effect of protecting privacy in the future.

In 1984, George Orwell’s Big Brother was so powerful because he was the only one with the ability to control technology. Fortunately, that is not the society in which Americans live, and one of the ways to prevent this scenario is to make sure there is a robust private market for any surveillance technologies.

When government tries to watch the people, the people can watch government right back. If principles of liberty should begin to falter, and government does try to make the chips mandatory, people will know how to remove them and perhaps even disable the frequency.

Any technology is a tool which can be used either for good or evil. RFID cards, both the implantable and non-implantable kind, offer enhanced efficiency and greater convenience, but that same tracking feature could also be used by a malevolent government as a means to monitor citizens. Fortunately, America does not currently face that threat, making it foolish to oppose the technology and all the benefits it can bring.

Sonia Arrison, a TechNewsWorld columnist, is director of Technology Studies at the California-based Pacific Research Institute.

1 Comment

  • Can a single doze of heroin ruin your whole life?
    It makes you feel better. It makes you smarter. It takes you to the new level of experience. It’s brought to you by your trusted friends. It’s voluntary. It’s free. So why don’t you take it?
    But when you get used to it, when your new level of experience has been built on it, how can you live without it? And it’s no longer free, no longer voluntary. And those who supply you with it are no longer your friends.
    Understanding this you may stop right after the first doze. But once you’ve tasted the promoted advantages of it, will you be able to forget that there is something better and still be happy with what you have?
    I have no doubt that one day this or some kind of that technology is going to become mandatory, because natural development of society and technology utilized by it will inevitably demand new solutions necessary for its further development, security and even the very existence. And I have no illusion that current government will forever remain so friendly…
    There are some boundaries which once you cross — you never come back. Trojan always looks harmlessly at first, but once you let it in, eventually it reveals its true but intentionally hidden abusive nature. Think carefully before you do it, at least because those, who mostly want you to do it, they think very carefully…

Leave a Comment

Please sign in to post or reply to a comment. New users create a free account.

Technewsworld Channels