Could I scan your chip, please?

Anarchival says that while we may laugh at the response to human chipping, it’s not that far-fetched or as one-sided as you may think!

So let’s set the prophesy aside and look at this a little more objectively. If the technology exists, and could conceivably be built out to monitor large populations in the foreseeable future, is it really a bad thing? The argument is definitely two-sided. We’ve already become used to identification numbers and cards as a means of accessing the economy, and in many ways they’ve made our lives more convenient. They’ve also made it more difficult for marginalized populations such as the poor, the homeless, and undocumented workers to access that same economy. Anyone with a GPS-enabled smart phone is already familiar with the joys and sorrows of always being found. On one hand, having a location device with you at all times makes it easier to interface with the world around you. On the other hand, it’s a stalker’s paradise, and it’s easy to envision that if services like foursquare were made “always on” and “mandatory,” your ability to get lost and be alone from employers, marketers, the government, etc. would disappear.

Each of these examples is couched in its own policy issues, and deserves a debate in its own right. The problems involved often boil down to a single issue: when does public safety outweigh the right to privacy? In the case of Alzheimer’s patients, the likelihood of their recovering from their condition is slim to none (unlike children, who will grow up and not need to be tracked by parents one day), and there exists a strong safety concern that likely outweighs their right to privacy. The worst danger is to themselves, after all, so it could be argued, of all vulnerable populations, they stand to benefit the most from such an implant. Prisoners, parolees, and illegal immigrants are another problem altogether. They are by the nature of their class not willing participants. Real consent in such situations would be impossible. In most cases, they will not always be a member of the class, either. Will the implants be removable in those cases, or will statutory schemes be put in place to determine when an offender is bad enough to be permanently chipped? If the chips are not removable, will they be editable to account for changes in circumstance or correction of errors? Nobody wants to end up being called “Not Sure” for the rest of their lives. If they can be edited, how are they more secure than the identification and tracking technology we already use?

Before the general public gets to enjoy their shiny new implants, however, it’s safe to assume more vulnerable populations will receive them first. VeriChip has already begun chipping Alzheimer’s patients. It’s natural to suppose prisoners and parolees will soon replace their wrist and ankle bracelets in the same way. Already, a President has suggested that such technology could be used to monitor the movement and employment of illegal immigrants. Perhaps like pet owners microchip their pets to make identification and tracking easier, we will start chipping our children to protect against kidnapping and runaways. Will the chips later be taken out? Probably not. Once we’re comfortable enough with adopting these kinds of implants for these purposes, they’ll soon be accepted generally and used in a variety of other ways.

via anarchival » Blog Archive » “Papers, please.”.