2012

Shernelle Pringle 

Research in the Disciplines: Science 

Medicine and Society                                

Karen Thompson 

4/26/2012 

WhenTheyGetUnderYourSkin:ExploringtheValueofHumanImplantableMicrochips

  

2  

When They Get Under Your Skin: Exploring the Value of Human Implantable Microchips The outlook for implant technology is promising within medical and practical uses. Imagine living in a world where with the wave of a hand, the car starts or the house door opens. Imagine going to the hospital and not needing to carry any documents and that doctors can obtain all the information they need about a patient’s life by scanning their hand. It seems a little farfetched, but this is exactly where advancing technology has brought society. Microchip implants in humans is the thing of the future; not entirely, they are actually the trend of the present as well. Today, microchip implants in humans are used in a variety of ways. Chip Implant technology functions primarily to store patient information and thereby can serve to more accurately represent patient history or to identify disaster victims. Society is not aware of the full impact microchip implants could have on humans. Using implants raise a number of ethical debates, the most prevalent one being privacy. The topic of microchip implants is controversial because people see both the good and bad aspects of microchip implants. Although implant technology is promising, no system is perfect and the drawbacks can be serious in the sense that health and security can be compromised. Microchip implants in humans are a relatively new technology. As with any other personal medical device, the question of privacy and safety arise and should be taken into consideration. In this study, the culprits are better examined by using actual surveillance methods in Denmark as a model of comparison. Ethical questions highlight the effectiveness of this new technology and examine the extent to which society is willing to risk its privacy. In comparison to other technology, perhaps a lack of privacy is no longer an issue but has become the norm. The extent to which society is willing to risk the privacy and ultimately the identity of each individual will be examined. Although society has not fully conformed to microchip implants, it is possible they will in the future; until then, society’s focus is on giving consent to this form of ‘technological experiment’. Historically speaking medical experimentation has been controversial throughout history, for example German officials conducted experiments on millions of Nazi prisoners. More recently, officials in Mexico are using microchip implants as an anti-kidnapping tool for children. The uses of microchips in humans pose an indirect (and sometimes direct) form of control thus relating to the concept of totalitarianism. Many fail to realize that microchip implants in humans represent a form of totalitarianism where technology and those in charge of that technology is given excess power. Drawing upon Christian Borch’s analysis of crime prevention in “Crime Prevention as Totalitarian Biopolitics”, the article elaborates on material technologies implemented as crime prevention strategies which can be related to the concept of microchip implants in human beings. Borch focuses on the Danish Crime Prevention Council and the tactics used by the council that may not only regulate crime but also regulates the lives of citizens. Microchip implants can substitute the role of material technologies described in Borch’s reading to give a clear representation of the relation between microchips and totalitarianism. Comparably to the Danish Crime Prevention Council, Corporations that manufacture microchip implants risk exercising control over individuals involved with the technology thus amounting to a totalitarian environment. This study seeks to 1) describe the development, application and inner working of implant technology and 2) examine the probable setbacks caused by the manufacturer and by government officials and private industry.

  

3  

For those who promote the implant technology without regard to the dangers, one need only refer back to the proliferation of cell phone technology and its recent role in the terrorist attack in Madrid. Since implantable microchips are a relatively new technology, it can be seen as a form of human experiment bringing with it not only ethical risks but also health risks that can arise. Even though few currently use implantable microchips, it is still popularized by corporations and is attracting the interest of consumers. Similar to invention of cell phones, implantable microchips are marketed with emphasis on its wide range of applications. And like cell phones, which also started of slow, it is possible that microchip implants are also starting of slow but will continue with a steady rise in production. There are many social implication of implanting microchips into the body. This paper will focus on the social implications of implanting microchips into the body and will include an assessment of the risks of microchip implants in humans as well as the ethical debate of privacy. Use of implantable RFID microchips in humans represents an extreme form of technology that will lead to an uncertain future for the up and coming generations. Most technologies start out as simple yet worthwhile pursuits. The rapid evolution, however, often loses sight of the initial requirement. Understanding the origins or underlining use of microchips in humans sets the path for analyzing the potential risks. Radio Frequency Identifiers (RFID) are microchips that can be “implanted in the human body for locating and tracking persons or for remotely controlling human biological functions” (Aubert 676). This technology is has various personal uses but is most prevalent in the health sector. The RFID human-implanted microchips are placed under the skin and serve as identifiers through the transmittance of radio frequency. The microchip carries a unique 16-code identification number and does not have the capacity of tracking. However, they can be scanned at a close distance using a reader that emits energy; the device is considered to be passive because it does not require the use of batteries. In the early 1990s, RFID implants were being used to track the reproductive and feeding patterns of livestock then soon gained the status for identification of livestock and pets. The idea for implanting RFID tags in humans originated after the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center. Law enforcement officials would write their badge number on their chest and so there was a need for a more efficient form of identification. The need for a better form of identification attracted the company Applied Digital and they then “created the VeriChip Corporation as a wholly-owned subsidiary in December 2001. Roughly three years after its creation, VeriChip received FDA approval for its human-implantable microchip in medical applications” (Currid 361). Although the approval from the FDA occurred in a rather short period of time, it does not prove that the device is safe. There is still a lot of health risks associated with implanting RFID tags. Drawing on the elaborations of Borch, the strategies put in place for crime prevention resembles the use of microchip implants in humans. There are a lot of risks associated with microchip implants; without the right limits microchip implants may regulate every aspect of an individual’s life. A line needs to be drawn, “nothing is too insignificant or marginal to evade intervention. Everything contains a potential risk which may legitimize regulation” (Borch 102). In relation to the material technologies set in place for crime prevention, Borch emphasizes that all technological advances ought to be closely monitored because of their risk. RFID microchips have the potential of regulating the lives of individuals and as such need to be regulated. On the other hand, some may argue that technological advances will always occur and is too time consuming to intervene. However, if one were to just accept

  

4  

that claim and not intervene or regulate the use of technology, then the risk to privacy, identity and safety will be violated. Moreover, the FDA’s decision to approve the microchips in such a short time span is insufficient when comparing the actual risks microchip implants in humans pose. A delayed ruling by the FDA would have favored Borch’s opinion in that ‘nothing is too insignificant or marginal to evade intervention’. Overall, this representation of society’s reliance on technology should engage the thought of its citizens. As implied previously, implant technology can pose serious threats to an individual's condition in a materialistic sense. Moreover, the threat can escalate to the intangible, yet, discernible identity of the individual. In today’s society, the advancement of technology has become the norm; there is a new or updated gadget every day that people tend to identify themselves with. A society that was once made up of nonconforming individuals is now made up of individuals who subject themselves to the conflicts of technology. For instance, not many people can do without their phones or access to a computer, however, the ongoing developments of technology is becoming ever so invasive. With the introduction of human implantable RFID technologies, it is uncertain “the extent to which they will substitute for the capabilities of human labor and be able to provide continuous surveillance” (Curtin, Kauffman, Riggins 100). If people are not careful, RFID implants will soon have the potential to ‘substitute for the capabilities of human labor’. It is arguable that technologies that substitute the capabilities of humans are indeed beneficial, for instance mechanical robots in factories greatly reduce the risk o injuries. However, invasive RFID technologies are not equally beneficial because they have the potential of negatively affecting the identity of humans. Identity in this does not refer solely to the general disposition of an individual but rather the psychological perspective that makes them who they are. Over the past decades, identity has taken different forms that all represent the characteristics of human beings. Making associations based on an individual customs has become a way of identifying individuals as well as the way individuals identify themselves. The introduction of technology in the human body cause individuals now to make associations based on what they think others expect them to be doing rather than what they enjoy doing. In other words, new technologies seem to direct the actions or thoughts of an individual. Similar to microchip implants, the material technologies of “crime prevention acquires its totalitarian character, rather, because it aims to cover the totality of our life and because it ‘in all abstractness is concerned with controlling and regulating possible forms of behavior and existence…” (Borch102). Borch’s reference to crime prevention can be related to the totalitarian style of control RFID microchips have over humans and how it affects the associations’ individuals make. Just as the crime prevention strategies aim to control the behavior of individuals, RFID microchip implants also take blame for affecting the interactions between individuals. An individual may not realize it at first, but having an RFID implant sets them apart from the average (non RFID implanted) patient. It puts the individual at risk for being labeled or identified because of having a microchip implant. In the same way, a person with a prosthetic limb is ostracized, so maybe the case for a patient with microchip implants; people are going to think that something is wrong with that patient. Additionally, People are losing sight of what it means to be an ‘individual’ and are too dependent on technology. A continued dependence on technology can affect the individual to the point where the society will soon take the shape of a totalitarian nation. As one of the few Bulgarian

  

5  

sociologist with the courage to assess the damage and deadly intentions of the Stalinist system, Lvuben Nickolov stated that totalitarianism markets the type of individual in which “[this] new social creature should be oversocialised, which means a total denial of individual uniqueness and personal ambitions; the complete identification of personality with society (375). In other words, individuality becomes one with the world. Instead of engaging curiosity, which can build the uniqueness of an individual, technology has limited that curiosity while taking on a totalitarian role. In reference to RFID implants in humans, the individual is in sense branded by the new technology. And as Nickolov mentions, this form of branding accompanies ‘a total denial of individual uniqueness’ where the individual is once again at risk for being labeled because of the microchip implant and succumbs to the labeling. The unique quality of an individual is blurred by the onset of technological advances, and it seems that conforming is the new way of being unique. There is a direct correlation with an individual’s identity and the progression of their community. The way people view themselves, or the way they are viewed by others, impacts the community. People need to feel connected, and a community can do just that “if one does not belong to a robust and viable community, one’s identity and individuality is said to be unstable” (Borch 97-98). Invasive technology such as RFID microchip implants breaches the connection between an individual and his/her community. Someone with a microchip implant is not guaranteed acceptance from members of their community. That individual is more likely to get the look of disapproval as ‘the public hasn't yet warmed to RFID tagging’ (Morrissey, par. 11). Perhaps this look of disapproval is a result of the public’s lack of knowledge on uses of RFID technology; nonetheless, many people disapprove because they are in fact aware of the risks associated with microchip implants and choose not to succumb to its totalitarian regime. Moreover, the views toward microchip implants in the body vary widely between cultures. For instance, some people are able to alter their bodies by getting tattoos or piercings; this may be acceptable in one culture but seem taboo in another. It is important to keep in mind that “people from different cultures will certainly differ in their acceptability of implanted RFID chips” (Foster and Jaeger, Ethical 47). Human beings are culturally unique; it is impossible to intertwine new customs into a particular culture. Religiously affiliated cultures may disprove of the invasive use of microchip implants in the body. There is repulsive feeling that generates from the use of microchip implants, perhaps “some of the opposition has to do with feelings about modification to one’s body” (Foster and Jaeger, RFID 28). Altering the human body is taken very seriously by some cultures. The body is considered to be sacred in certain cultures thus implanting RFID chips into the body alters the cultural identity of the person as well. Furthermore, RFID implants in the body represent more than the technological advancement of devices, but also the fear that modern society will turn into a totalitarian establishment; where the individual has little control or say in making decisions. This could have an effect on the global community as well. While some countries may oppose the use of RFID technology, others may find it necessary to legalize the use of RFID technology as a way of keeping tabs on their citizens. Overall, microchip implants are not beneficial to the individual if it affects his/her identity and the relations that individual have within his/her community. The impact of RFID implants on society can cover a wide range of beneficial uses. People are already engaging in personal, business and medical use of the product. One of the most prominent and controversial places that microchips are being implemented is in the healthcare

  

6  

sector. It is has become more apparent that “as the healthcare industry moves toward electronic healthcare records, subcutaneous chips could play a key role” (Gadzheva 219). According to this author, the use of RFID tags in humans can actually become beneficial. Technology in the healthcare system is quickly advancing and it seems that implanting RFID tags is the only way to catch up to the demand. In contrast, important ethical concerns surrounding the issue of microchip implants in humans focus on patient privacy. The implants carry a sixteen digit code that links to the patient’s entire medical history. This information can be useful to patients with memory difficulties or patients with a complex medical history. Nonetheless, the greater concern is to address who will have access to the patient’s medical history and how willing is the patient to share their full information. Getting proper treatment because of an implanted RFID chip is not guaranteed “so far there is no clear evidence that the VeriChip will help patients facing medical emergencies. (Foster R., RFID 28)”. All hospitals are not equipped with RFID technology proving that in an emergency situation, the implanted microchip would be ineffective in aiding the patient. Furthermore, essentially anyone can have access to the RFID reader which picks up information from the implanted RFID chip; and at any given time access the patient’s personal data without their knowledge. Similar to the use of microchip implants, “the fundamental rationality of these material technologies of prevention is to govern movements, flows and rhythms in time and space” (Borch 100). Borch emphasizes the reasons behind the use of material technologies are ‘to govern movement’ of the individual. As stated earlier, microchip implants store the personal data of patients, making it conceivable that patients’ personal information (including their medical history or pass code to their front door) can be acquired. Patients and medical personnel share the advantage of communicating through a technology that allows an individual to get adequate care. However, there is more probing that goes into exactly who that individual is. A major company involved in the distribution of human implantable RFID tags, VeriChip, “is promoting its system which it calls VeriMed, for use by patients who might present to healthcare facilities unresponsive and unable to provide identification” (Foster, Ethical 45) According to the authors, RFID implants are being promoted by the VeriChip corporation specifically for patients who are ‘unresponsive and unable to provide identification’. Although this has some positive aspects, as to patients being able to get adequate care when needed, patient consent also becomes an underling issue. The extent to which patients are selected for microchip implants is uncertain. At the time of acquiring the RFID tags, the patient by all means has to be responsive. If the patient is unresponsive at the time of implanting, it is then a breach of consent; even in human-subject research, “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” (The Nuremberg Code). Selecting patients to receive RFID microchip implants ought to be based on the patient’s ability to give full consent. Along with giving full consent, patients should also be informed of all of the potential risks associated with RFID tags. Corporations that highlight their past research of RFID microchip implants are providing patients/consumers with better care. However, corporations that brag solely on the health benefits of microchip implants may also be incorporating a totalitarian tactic of control. The use of a well meaning phrase such as ‘health benefits’ to promote the use of RFID implants is a way of influencing the consumer’s decision. Closely coupled to this is Borch’s reference to health and crime prevention in that “when a link is established between health and crime prevention, however, there is virtually no limit to what measures may be applied in the name of prevention” (97). On its own, crime prevention limits the measures that government agents can take, however, when linked with health, the government can now expand into different sectors

  

7  

that address the issues of health and crime prevention. Similarly, microchip implants seem more harmful on its own than when linked with the term ‘health benefits’. To direct the decisions of consumers, companies pair terms with negative connotations to terms with positive connotations. There is a misleading in the communication strategies that aims to control the actions of others and pose a form of control that can be considered totalitarian in nature. A lot of people turn away at the sound of microchips because they believe it to be solely medically associated; however, there are many personal and business applications related to microchip implants. Even though people are aware of the risks associated with RFID implants, when it comes to personal/private use, the concept of autonomy takes over. People believe that because it is their body, they can do as they please, regardless of risks or societal judgment. The Jacobson family, or as they have come to be known, ‘The Chipsons’, became the first family have implanted RFID tags. The family consisted of son Derek (who was only fourteen at the time of implanting), mom Leslie and dad Jeffrey. Jeffrey gained autonomy when he decided that he would implant a microchip in his arm because “‘the advantage of the chip is that the information is available at the time of need,’ Jeffrey explains. ‘It would speak for me, give me a voice when I don't have one.’” (Lev and Klarreich, par. 5). Jeffrey’s decision was based on the benefits he thought the microchips would provide him and his own will to do what he believes is best for him. It is true that a person can chose to do as they please to their body; after all, having the right to chose favors a society free of totalitarian traits. Some argue that the concept of implanting microchips is in itself a totalitarian trait as it carries the risk of limited control. With this, Corine Pelluchon conceptualizes on the view point that “the possible consequence of science and technology on society confronts us with the fundamental issue of the kind of society in which we want to live” (33). Rather than paying attention to the individual users of technology, progress depends on ‘the kind of society in which we want to live’. Analyzing the consequences of technology should be done on an individual scale where each individual considers their impact on society. On the contrary, Borch argues that corporations should be examined as opposed to the individual. In Borch’s view there are many material technologies used in crime prevention that seem to possess totalitarian traits, “the idea is rather to examine the overall preventatives endeavours of governmental rationality to which the Council subscribes” (92). Borch claims that the Danish Crime Prevention Council ought to pay attention to the reasons behind the ‘preventative endeavours’ the government is taking. Similarly, people should pay attention to the Corporations and Governmental agencies responsible for distributing and maintaining the microchips. At the same time, Government and Corporations are the ones who should consider their impact on society, not only the individual. This leads into further discussion of the influence RFID tags carry in the workplace. The application of RFID implants in the work world highlights an important debate of the potential risks to employees. In many working environments, individuals no longer have a unique identity but rather carry the identity of the workplace. For this reason, attention needs to be applied on “the extent to which [RFID technologies] will substitute for the capabilities of human labor and be able to provide continuous surveillance” (Curtin, Kauffman and Riggins, 100). The authors claim that the possibility of RFID technologies replacing the capabilities of employees is near. Employers will become reliant on this technology as a form of surveillance. Surveillance in the workplace is not beneficial to the growth of employees; it is associated with an uncomfortable setting. From the employee’s perspective, too much monitoring is not good but

  

8  

rather posses the totalitarian state of control. Instead there is a better focus both employers and employee can take into consideration, Borch explains “what unites present strategies of advanced liberal crime prevention and neo-conservative calls for punishment is the emphasis on individual responsibility…” (103). Even in the area of privacy and surveillance, the role of the individual is once again apparent. It is the employee’s and the employer’s individual responsibility to make certain that privacy concerns are addressed in the workplace. Further, as Borch implies, if the role of individual responsibility is carried out well, employers and employees become united with a common goal. There may be no escaping the world of surveillance in the workplace, but working for a common good will rebuff the idea that “surveillance technology has long become a routine element of a modern workplace” (Kurkovsky, Ewa and Bernardo, 106). The extent to which employers monitor their employees will be improved as well as employer-employee relationship, once issues of surveillance in the workplace are resolved. The introduction of material technologies by the Danish Council are assumed to enable, “mutual observation of each other’s lives and activities…increase the resident’s ability to monitor what goes on in the community” (Borch 99). If applied to the work world, Borch remarks that technology, and for the purpose of this essay, specifically RFID tags, would allow employers to constantly monitor the whereabouts of their employees. Although some may agree that monitoring is nothing new and already occurs in the work place ( through identification cards), the focus should be on the impact of human implantable RFID tags. Using RFID chips is too invasive, and will grant employers excess control. The technology should be scrutinized more intensely so as to avoid repeating the mistakes of the Danish Crime Prevention Council. This may guide the technology toward a more beneficial and practical direction. An important topic of discuss that comes to mind when human implantable RFID chips are mentioned is that of privacy and the associated risk of breaching that privacy. Privacy may refer to the personal space of an individual as well as how that individual defines and protects that space. Society’s view toward technology is changing as “fear and need for safety is transforming our public and private lives and environments.” (Gumpert and Drucker, 126). With the ongoing advancements of technology, it is rather difficult for one to live a fully private life. An invasive device such as the implantable RFID microchips will only increase the fear citizens have. As mentioned earlier in the passage, RFID microchips carry numerous uses, not just health related. When RFID microchips are introduced in the private sector, similar to the case where “the Attorney General of Mexico and members of his staff use the microchip as a security pass to access secured areas”, the risks associated with RFID increases (Currid 361). Government agencies become too involved by requesting staff members implant microchips, resulting in a totalitarian trait. Moreover, people become fearful that there every move can be tracked. In a sense the government and corporations manufacturing these microchips are becoming involved in the everyday lives of that individual. Borch could not have put into better words when she mentions, “it is my contention that this comprehensive endeavour to condition the conduct of ordinary citizens contains a totalitarian biopolitical propensity” (91). This quote not only touches on the issue of control but also on the possibility of a world with decreased privacy. Borch remarks that material technologies related to crime prevention are simply strategies to ‘condition the conduct of ordinary citizens’ and implies a breach of privacy. Microchip implants in the body has the capacity to influence the behavior of individuals which represents a form of psychological influence. Moreover, since RFID technologies are not mechanically linked to satellite-based positioning systems, Aubert argues “RFID technology is then not suitable for the

  

9  

real-time tracking of a person anywhere on the planet through RFID chip deeply implanted in its body” (681). Regardless of the lack in physical tracking of humans, RFID chips impose a psychological influence of tracking. Individuals will always feel that they are being watched or tracked. In general, it is important for individuals to maintain a degree of privacy because it allows individuals to uphold their autonomy and individuality. As stated in earlier discussions, maintaining ones individuality (or level of uniqueness) and autonomy is key to flourishing in a totalitarian free society. The use of microchip technology will ___. In summary, microchip technology has evolved over the years as an invasive procedure that can be used for identification purposes and is FDA approved for use in humans. This technology affects the identity of an individual in different areas including in social and private settings. In social settings, individuals stand out from the crowd and are labeled because of their RFID implants. On a private level, microchip implants influence individuals to do things on the basis of pleasing others rather than themselves. A major risk to identity is that microchip implants limits the interactions of individuals, leading them to a conforming personality rather than an identity that embraces uniqueness. The application of RFID implants carry a wide range of uses including relating to healthcare, personal and business settings. All of these uses pose their associated risks to the individual and are determining factors in assessing the value of microchip implants. Furthermore, it is also important to consider the implications of RFID technology on privacy. Microchip technology puts an individual’s privacy at risk since private information can be easily obtained by another individual. If an individual’s privacy is jeopardized by the invasive technology, then that individual’s identity and self-governance is put at risk. The model of crime prevention by the Danish Crime Prevent Council can be uses to illustrate the totalitarian effects of material technologies. Again, totalitarian infringement of individuality, via RFID chip implants, could jeopardize an individual identity. By reviewing the risks of RFID microchip technology, one can assess the true value of microchip implants in humans.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

10  

WORKS CITED(put in alphabetic order)

Grossman, Lev and Klarreich Kathie. "Meet The Chipsons." Time 159.10 (2002): 56. Business Source Elite. Web.

Foster, Kenneth R., and Jan Jaeger. "Ethical Implications Of Implantable Radiofrequency

Identification (RFID) Tags In Humans." American Journal Of Bioethics 8.8 (2008): 44-48. Web.

Currid, Elizabeth G. “More Bite than Bark: The Legal and Social Consequences of

Microchipping Individuals with Alzheimer’s disease” Ind. Health L. Rev.6.357 (2009): 357-384.Web.

Gadzheva, Maya. "Getting Chipped: To Ban Or Not To Ban." Information & Communications Technology Law 16.3 (2007): 217-231. Web.

Pelluchon, Corine. “Toward A New Philosophical Anthropology: The Limits Of Human Rights In Bioethics.” Perspectives On Political Science 37.1 (2008): 31-40.

Nickolov, Lvuben. “Everyday Values vs. Oversocialisation.” International Sociology 6.3 (1991): 375-379. Web.

Morrissey, Siobhan. “Are Microchip Tags Safe?” Time Oct 18, 2007. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1672865,00.html#ixzz1sjCu4rks

Curtin, John, Kauffman Robert, and Riggins Frederick. "Making the ‘MOST’ out of RFID technology: a research agenda for the study of the adoption, usage and impact of RFID." Information Technology & Management June 2007: 87-110. Web.

Aubert, Hervé. "RFID Technology For Human Implant Devices." Comptes Rendus Physique 12.7 (2011): 675-683. Web.

Foster R., Kenneth and Jaeger, Jan. “RFID Inside: The Murky Ethics of Implanted Chips.” IEEE Spectrum March 2007 :24-29 http://repository.upenn.edu/be_papers/81.

The Nuremberg Code, Reprinted from Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949. Kurkovsky,Stan, Ewa Syta, and Bernardo Casano, “ C Continuous RFID-Enabled

Authentication: Privacy Implications." IEEE Technology & Society Magazine 30.3 (2011): 34-41. Web.

Gumpert, Gary, and Drucker, Susan J. "Public Boundaries: Privacy And Surveillance In A

Technological World." Communication Quarterly 49.2 (2001): 115-129. Web.

  

11  

Koprowski, Gene J. “Where’s Jimmy? Just Google His Bar Code.” Photograph. Fox News May 14, 2010. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/14/radio-frequency-rfid-implant/