In 1989, a new way of identifying, tracking, and locating household pets entered onto the market: microchipping. As this technology has evolved over the decades, it has somehow found its way from between the shoulder blades of a small dog or cat, to between the thumb and forefinger of humans across the globe. The idea was and is still somewhat revolutionary. At the size of a singular grain of rice, the chip's capabilities span far wider than those of any pet microchipping system in existence. With the wave of your hand, it becomes possible to transmit signals containing your identity and health records, to call someone from your phone, and to even pay for transactions without cash or card. The vision is advanced, new, exciting, but then comes the question: Is it too far?
In 2017, the rise of human-microchipping started its upward trend, taking root in Sweden. Many companies, and even small businesses, started to hold events known as "chipping parties." These special occasions would encourage employees to upgrade themselves with the new technology, rewarding them with food and free t-shirts as body modification specialists, typically tattoo artists, went to work. Many of the early adopters saw the chips as next level, a way to advance themselves not only physically, but also socially. For many, this was the future for all tech and companies. Microchipping was going to replace the world and life as we knew it. These ideas took on slowly, intriguing tech gurus across Europe and leading to thousands moving to implant themselves. Spreading continued as the general public caught wind and abandoned their traditional keys and wallets for a small tag that could unlock their houses and pay for their gas within seconds. While some saw this as progressive in the best ways possible, others were undeniably appalled.
There are many concerns that have come to light as the new product has taken root. These often serve as the reasoning for late and non adopters in their choices to delay or simply opt out of investing in the movement and technology. First, and most obviously, comes the questions of invading privacy. Tech companies that sell and manufacture the implants have access to the data stored and transmitted by their own creations. As easily as a person's entire life is stored in a grain sized piece of science, it is equally accesible to large companies to buy, use, and sell. Many users deny this, but the harsh reality is that this happens daily with social media companies and can happen even more readily when more valuable information is given voluntarily to microchipping companies. Another large concern surrounds the use of the chips by employers. Many of the pioneer movements for the product started in the workplace, as mentioned before with the "implant parties." The issue with these company endorsements is that there is an unseen pressure that results from this. Employees may feel that in order to keep their job or to remain relevant within the workplace, they have to opt into receiving the chip. This can also create false popularity and demand that can spread outside of the workplace and increase on a larger scale within society, creating almost a "bandwagon effect."
With every new piece of technology there must be a weighing of both the ultimate benefits and consequences of usage. For the human microchip, it comes down to a simple trade. In exchange for easier access to your belongings, money, and identity, one must trade privacy in all of those sectors. Is it worth it? The answer lies in a self evaluation of how much your privacy truly means to you and how comfortable you are with your entire life being information in the hands of strangers.
References:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/states-are-cracking-down-on-companies-microchipping-their-employees-how-common-is-it-and-why-does-it-happen-2020-02-03
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/08/the-rise-of-microchipping-are-we-ready-for-technology-to-get-under-the-skin
Comments
Post a Comment