How would you feel about carrying all of the identifying information of your life with you in a tiny chip? In our society today, we are beginning to implant “under-the-skin” ID chips. These chips hold any personal information on them, and can transmit that information to anyone with a “special hand-held scanner” (Swafford). Similar radio frequency tags have been used for many years to track household pets and other animals. Once the hand-held scanner reads the tag number, it is able to extract information about the animal and its owner. The identity chip is seen to have two identities of it’s own, a “Digital Angel” or a “Digital Devil.”
Applied Digital Solutions has now introduced a passive Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) chip that is compatible with human tissue. Given the name “Verichip,” the rice-sized device is injected through a syringe like needle under the skin of a person’s arm or hand; once it’s implanted, it’s unable to be removed. In the article, Bar-coding Humans, Angela Swafford notes how the Verichip is believed to be the first chip designed for human identification and is currently undergoing constant improvement in technology. Swafford also explains how Applied Digital Solutions is advancing the chip so that it can store all kinds of information and serve as a central database with a continual download of information. "The goal is to be able to develop a chip that will track the movement of people all over the world by utilizing global positioning satellites" (Swafford). The current device holds a number, and once it’s scanned, the authorized person must log into an encrypted website to access any information associated with the specific ID chip. Vincent Schodolski discusses how “the Verichip gives each implanted individual a number that, in turn, links to a database of information” (Schodolski). For example, if a person has a medical emergency, the hospital could scan the implanted chip, log into the website with the unique information, and access all personal information. Clearly the use of this chip has a huge impact on society as a whole, and on each individual in the means of privacy.
One of the primary reasons the Verichip has been created is to offer rapid and secure patient identification in emergencies. However, society must question whether this increased access to information can in fact harm the patients. For example, insurance companies would have access to what a patient’s pre-existing conditions are. Therefore, they can decide if it’s a risk to cover the individual, and may in the end determine if coverage will not be provided. A patient does not have the choice to keep some of their medical information private; whoever has access to their chip has access to it all. Another question concerns the access to this personal information and who determines access to it. Is this a decision left to the medical profession? Is this a decision left to the patient? Is this a decision left to the government? Who chooses? What about sensitive diseases such as AIDS/HIV? A patient’s right to keep the reality of such a disease private, as long as they are not harming other, should be kept with the individual rather than with some other authority. Helene Bernardo argues, “surely, a Medic Alert bracelet or necklace should be sufficient identification in a health crises” (Benardo). Why should society need to have easy access to such a level where there are endless questions and need to have a non-removable chip to be able to have access to these records?
Another intended use of the Verichip is to ensure security. Despite the positive factors, many also question whether the additional security is worth the loss of privacy. When individuals choose to embed these chips into their skin, who gets to decide when the information is accessible and under what circumstances? These are moral and ethical considerations. From a religious standpoint many would say this is the equivalent of “taking the mark of the beast.” Taking the mark of the beast in the realm of believers is seem as selling your soul to the devil. This mark is not defined in its appearance, but many believe it will be binary or barcode in nature.
One would see an additional benefit to this identity chip as the easy access factor it holds. Rather than having to carry around all the identification, credit cards, insurance cards, medical information, those wanting this chip would have the luxury of just swiping their arm. People could quickly charge to their credit card accounts, access money from their bank’s automatic teller machines without a card, and provide medical information and insurance coverage information at their physician’s office or at the pharmacy. Is this really necessary or is it merely convenient?
The decision of whether this identity chip is a “Digital Angel” or a “Digital Devil” is truly a moral dilemma. After reading the articles, information and opinions, the identity chip seems to be a real “Digital Devil.” What better security can this device bring to the United States citizens that they don’t already have? Is this advanced technology taking away humanity? Individual freedom is highly valued in our society. Individuals must weigh the pros and cons of this technology and decide for themselves, whether it’s right. Improved technology isn’t always the answer.
1.) Bernardo, Helene "The Specter of Implanted Identity Chips. (Editorial Desk)(Letter to the Editor)." The New York Times. (Oct 18, 2004 pA16 (L) col 04 (2 col): A16 (L). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Mount Mansfield Union High School. Web. 2 Nov. 2010.
2.) Schodolski, Vincent J. "Identity chips could protect health, but hurt privacy, some say." Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service. (Dec 27, 2004): K1522. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Mt Mansfield Union High School. Web. 2 Nov. 2010.
3.) Swafford, Angela. "Barcoding Humans." Boston Globe (2004): Web. 2 Nov. 2010
4.) Youtube.com
