RFID implantable devices for humans are increasingly being considered an intrinsic part of the Web of Things and People (WOTAP) architecture. One of the key pieces of the WOTAP puzzle, despite it being in its infancy, is the ability for lifeless things (i.e. objects) to be related to living things (i.e. subjects) through such technologies as beneath-the-skin radio-frequency identification tags within a smart sensor/smart dust wireless network environment. The motivation behind this vision is: that if you can tag cardboard boxes in a supply chain and vehicles that distribute these cardboard boxes, then you might as well tag the people that create them. In essence we have trialed the tagging of domestic cats and dogs, livestock and thoroughbred horses, so why not tag their owners, the farmers, and the trainers! There seem to be three groups of people emerging in the RFID implant debate: the so-called "vocal minority" who warn against the dangers of non-medical implantables for humans, the entrepreneurial elite who are also a type of minority but who tout a future where everything living is implanted for convenience and reward, and a third group of people who are completely indifferent and to some extent unaware of the possibilities. This presentation will consider the risk versus reward debate using primary interview source data and ponder on the potential uptake of non-medical implantables and their social implications.
- microchip implants,
- social implications
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/kmichael/205/