What ethical concerns are there of implantable RFID chips?

[fuzzybabybunny]

I read articles like this that say there are ethical concerns with implantable RFID chips but fail to see how these ethical concerns are *because* of the implanted nature of the chip:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...k-employees-getting-implanted-microchips.html

It uses a passive RFID chip which doesn't require a power source because the power is sent via electromagnetic waves by the reader.

The distance that the reader can read the chip is dependent on the wavelength used, the antenna installed on the chip, the transmit power of the reader, and the sensitivity of the reader. I'm not well-versed in RFID so correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm having trouble figuring out how this could lead to rampant "big brother" scenarios, at least easily.

- If you had a company swipe card using RFID or NFC, that information is local to just your company. A company can easily monitor your actions and movements with just a standard swipe card by placing necessary swipe points at certain locations, and the range would be similar to an implantable chip. Having an implanted company chip instead of a card isn't going to change much. Sure, you can separate yourself from your swipe card, but then you just won't be able to get into the areas or do the things you need your swipe card for. Of course, the company could have readers installed everywhere, even public spaces, like the bathroom or the break room or the back patio for smoke breaks, and having a card you can leave behind at your desk instead of an implant could make you invisible to them.

- Same with using your implanted chip to pay for stuff. When you use a standard credit card, you're also leaving behind a trail of activity. An implanted chip doesn't change this, unless you're using cash and the store has some powerful RFID reader reading your implant chip anyway.

- I think the real issue is you would have an implantable chip that can be read from a distance without your explicit consent each time. Take a government issued ID card. You can choose to reveal it to someone when necessary. All other times it just stays hidden in your wallet or whatever. The information on it can certainly be used to track your activities if it was able to be monitored constantly.

Could an implanted RFID chip be read without your permission from a distance? And would the chip actually transmit your name, address, DOB, etc? Or would it simply transmit a 128-bit global unique ID (UUID?)

 

[arandomguy]

Just the procedure itself raises ethical concerns as it is an invasive procedure to implant an RFID chip.

 

[SKORPI0]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-frequency_identification#Controversies

 

[Red Squirrel]

I would not like the idea of any kind of tracking device on me, and while this is not active, a high enough power RFID reader could read it from a decent distance such as within a doorway. This is yet another way the government can track my every move. I mean, sure they can already, but this just adds to it.

That, and it's too creepily similar to the prophecies in Revelation about the mark of the beast. Especially if they start making it mandatory or practically mandatory. I could see that happen, where it's optional, but then you won't be able to do anything if you don't have it, such as have a job or buy stuff from most stores. So it will not necessarily be mandatory, but if you don't have it you'll basically be denied from most things.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Just the procedure itself raises ethical concerns as it is an invasive procedure to implant an RFID chip.

Doesn't have to be. It's an elective procedure. Check the article in the OP. If it was mandatory or practically mandatory to secure a job then I can see that being a concern.

 

[arandomguy]

Doesn't have to be. It's an elective procedure. Check the article in the OP. If it was mandatory or practically mandatory to secure a job then I can see that being a concern.

Well the concern is always what happens when it becomes mandatory or ubiquitous which effectively makes it either mandatory or those without suffers significant hardships by comparison. A lot of things that elective in theory aren't in practice due to societal influences.

And isn't that always the concern and debate with this arguments? I don't think anybody cares or feels there is controversy if something is truly forever elective (or at least a significant amount of people).

Can you be specific about where in the article it argues it doesn't have to invasive? Inherently even if the technology moves towards nanotech levels of miniaturization it would still be an invasive procedure as it involves inserting a foreign object into your body.

 

[pcgeek11]

The mark of the beast.

They ain't sticking that thing in me!

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Well the concern is always what happens when it becomes mandatory or ubiquitous which effectively makes it either mandatory or those without suffers significant hardships by comparison. A lot of things that elective in theory aren't in practice due to societal influences.

And isn't that always the concern and debate with this arguments? I don't think anybody cares or feels there is controversy if something is truly forever elective (or at least a significant amount of people).

Can you be specific about where in the article it argues it doesn't have to invasive? Inherently even if the technology moves towards nanotech levels of miniaturization it would still be an invasive procedure as it involves inserting a foreign object into your body.

In the context of this company, it's totally elective and looks to be a convenience thing.

Your post said that its unethical because it's an invasive procedure. Something that's invasive (ie. Implanted inside the body) isn't by definition unethical. It depends on the context. In this case, I say that it doesn't have to be unethical even though it *is* invasive because the employees chose to do it.

 

[pcgeek11]

I wonder if the company will pay for the surgery to remove the chip if you quit or are fired.

 

[PottedMeat]

Could an implanted RFID chip be read without your permission from a distance?

i don't see why not, get a sample chip and interrogate it at your leisure to figure out the encryption/encoding/decoding. have a compact unit to handle mobile scanning.

And would the chip actually transmit your name, address, DOB, etc? Or would it simply transmit a 128-bit global unique ID (UUID?)

i don't think there are any standards regarding the data transmitted, it's whatever the customer asked for.

I wonder if the company will pay for the surgery to remove the chip if you quit or are fired.

anything is better than implanted id. access cards/ token fobs/ biometrics, etc. a half decent lawyer could probably convince a jury that at least some medical problems were caused by the device and wring enough money out of the company so that it just wouldn't be worth implementing.

 

[arandomguy]

In the context of this company, it's totally elective and looks to be a convenience thing.

Your post said that its unethical because it's an invasive procedure. Something that's invasive (ie. Implanted inside the body) isn't by definition unethical. It depends on the context. In this case, I say that it doesn't have to be unethical even though it *is* invasive because the employees chose to do it.

You're misunderstanding. It's inherently unethical if it is a forced (or even pressured) decision simply because it is an invasive procedure. What I'm saying is simply requiring a person to implant an completely inert object into their body for whatever reason already raises ethical concerns before hte privacy issue even comes up.

Very few people would care either way if its a completely voluntary decision. I don't know why you are even bringing up the ethics argument if the counter argument is going to be it is completely voluntary. Choosing to get body piercings isn't unethical, forcing or pressuring someone to do it is.

When I say pressure I do mean it. Even if a company may not explicitly require such action, as that would no doubt likely open it to some type of lawsuit, not everything has to be explicit. If you're a new employee on probation and your manager comes to saying we are all going to be having a RFID chip party this Friday for all the new employees, and everyone who's worked here has had it done, what happens?

To me it seems like what you are really asking is what are the privacy concerns of implanted RFID chips.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Unless you expect to work at the company for life it's a stupid thing to do. Inserting a foreign object under the skin and damaging tissue, possibly nerves and blood vessels just to avoid carrying a swipe card makes no sense to me.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Perhaps the company could make it so that it's optional, and if you go with it the perk is that you are GUARANTEED a job for life. Ex: no layoff, ever. There would even be a sum of money in a slush fund so that if the company ever goes under you are given enough to live off of for the rest of your life. I'd personally still hate the idea, I rather just have an access fob. But in this age of job insecurity, it would be a good perk if they want to push this.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Just the procedure itself raises ethical concerns as it is an invasive procedure to implant an RFID chip.

I'm gonna quote you here because I have a feeling we both understand things the same way, but you just made a very unclear post.

No where in my post or the article that I linked to mention anything about a forced or mandatory procedure. It's about a company in Sweden offering their employees an implanted chip and they can take it or leave it. Forced/unforced isn't even a topic.

No where in your post above do you mention a forced or mandatory procedure. You simply say "the procedure."

So I'm pretty sure I'm not misunderstanding your post if I take it as the words you've written. You simply made an unclear one.

Forcing someone to undergo an implant is unethical, obviously. That's not the point of my OP and never was. Like you said, the point is what kinds of privacy concerns do implanted RFID chips have. That's it. And to add to that, if my understanding of RFID is correct, it's insecure whether its in your body or in your pocket, but at least the latter can be left at home.