This is very polarizing topic. Using under the skin RFID implants in humans. Its an approach long used in Veterinary applications. Now some devices of this type have been approved by the FDA for humans. Notable is the Verichip from Applied Digital. Good overview article in ZDNet. I have brought this topic up with a number of people closely involved with RFID in the more mundane supply-chain world, and the reaction is always strong, something like ... it won't happen ... its too invasive ... it will really spook people, etc. They are sensitive to these kinds of applications because they highlight privacy issues. Yet current passive tag technology used in these devices have read distances of only a few cm. True, the basic technology can be extended, so there is a danger that reads can be extended beyond those distances. Yes, there is a danger of mis-use, but compare it against the value of protecting health and lives. Will the use of human implantable tags out-run tagging the average item on the grocery shelf?
This is one of those technologies that I will absolutely reject under every circumstance. The day this becomes mandatory, is the day I sail off to some remote island and eat cocunut and fish all day.
The only possible scenario that I could imagine where I'd even consider it, is if transparency was absolutely universal - with no exceptions. That means we as the people can monitor the whereabouts of every single person. The idea that there are the watchers versus those who are watched is utterly abhorrent. Those who are not watched are thus unaccountable. As anyone in security knows, any unaccountable 'hole' no matter how small or how 'secure' will be exploited.
Posted by: Paul Hughes | August 23, 2004 at 11:27 AM