Welcome to another episode of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
Streaming exclusively from Disney Negative with your host, Jada.
Hi, friends. Last week, we talked about the dangers of running with scissors.
This week, chip implants. No, not those, but this. Human microchip implants.
Imagine, with just the swipe of one's microchipped hand against a digital reader device,
being able to unlock that door to one's office, garage, or home. Today, more than 50,000 people
worldwide have elected to receive microchip implants. Some even affectionately call themselves
human cyborgs. But first, let's briefly talk about what this technology is,
and then we'll catapult into the controversy surrounding its use. So how does the chip work?
Well, the microchips are encased in a shell slightly larger than a grain of rice.
Now, the average cost of this procedure is $150, and that's to have this microchip,
about the size of a grain of rice, surgically inserted between one's thumb and index finger.
And also for $150, you can buy 320 pounds of rice at Walmart. And as the comedian Mitch
Hedberg teaches us, rice is great whenever you're hungry and you want 2,000 of something.
But I digress. So chip implants are especially popular in Sweden, where more than 4,000 Swedes
have replaced their traditional key cards for chip implants to use for access at the gym,
e-tickets on the railway, and even to store emergency contact information and their social
media profiles. In the U.S., however, this technology's reception has not been as enthusiastic.
While chip implants are gradually being embraced, perhaps better to say inserted,
some lawmakers are taking preemptive action to prohibit forced microchipping.
Now, the first U.S. company to begin offering employees free microchip implants was a Wisconsin
vending machine software company in 2017. This alarmed some lawmakers, however, who felt it was
quote, a rabbit hole I don't think we should go down, unquote. Instead,
they proposed banning human microchip implants entirely. Oh, and speaking of rabbit holes,
another rabbit hole is the Bill Gates microchip conspiracy theory. Now, PolitiFact debunked this
unfounded claim that the coronavirus pandemic was part of a plan by Microsoft founder Bill
Gates to establish a vaccination program to implant trackable microchips in people.
Facebook also flagged this spurious claim after the post was shared by more than 44,000 users.
Additionally, the BBC debunked this myth after the leader of the Russian Communist Party
accused globalists of supporting, quote, a covert mass chip implantation, which they may in time
resort to under the pretext of a mandatory vaccination against coronavirus, unquote.
So, tossing conspiracy theories aside, how do these chip implants actually work?
Well, not all chip implants are designed alike. Some chips communicate using radio frequency
identification, known as RFID, and are passive transponders. What does that mean?
Well, according to the Seattle-based biohacking company called Dangerous Things,
passive means that it allows a small computer chip with no battery or power source to be powered by
and communicate with a device reader using the magnetic field generated by it.
Given the chip's petite size, an example on this slide is one that is
two millimeters by 12 millimeters, the digital reader can be positioned a few inches next to
one's microchipped hand to communicate. Now, apart from RFID, Sweden's top provider of chip implants,
Biohacks International, produces primarily near-field communication chips, known as NFC
chips. Now, these are commonly used in mobile payments and contactless credit cards. Basically,
they use electromagnetic radio fields to wirelessly communicate with digital readers
that are in close proximity, much like our smartphones do. These chips are also passive,
meaning that they store information that other devices can read, but the NFC chip itself
doesn't read that information. According to Biohacks, a benefit of NFC chips is their widespread
international use across a variety of services and products that support the NFC global standard.
In turn, this allows for more streamlined integration and use with existing infrastructure
and across public and private sectors. So, if these chips are passive,
why are some U.S. lawmakers calling for a preemptive ban?
On the one microchipped hand, this technology offers attractive benefits of convenience and
speed. Again, imagine just by swiping your hand, you can quickly buy that pound of rice.
On the other microchipped hand, this technology also raises significant privacy concerns.
A general privacy and information security concern here with NFC technology is that it could allow
third parties to eavesdrop on device communication, corrupt data, or wage interception attacks.
The NFSC.org warns that interception attacks are when someone intercepts the data transmitted
between two NFC devices and then alters that data as it's being relayed. Like any device,
really, these personal chips have security vulnerabilities which could potentially be
exploited for malicious purposes, even if the chip is physically embedded underneath the skin,
according to microbiologist Ben Libertin with the Stockholm Kortenska Institute.
Mr. Libertin warns that these chips can reveal a lot of personal information about our health,
location information, how often we're working and for how long, and even such intimate details as
the frequency of our coffee breaks or trips to the restroom.
Another privacy concern that deserves careful scrutiny
is to what extent could this data be legally shared with third parties?
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling that squarely addresses this. That is,
the treatment of microchip implants as third parties. Under the third-party records doctrine,
however, determined by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1979, in the case of Smith v. Maryland,
the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third
party and conveyed by him to government authorities even if that information is revealed
on the assumption it will be used for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third
party won't be betrayed. In sum, it remains an open question as to whether these devices count
as third parties or not. In addition, religious objections are also being raised against
hand scanners and other biometric technology in the workplace. Now, here we have a case from 2013
where a religious objection was raised. Quick rundown of the facts. A coal miner in West
Virginia filed a Title VII religious discrimination case against his employer, Consul Energy,
for refusing to accommodate his religious objection to using the biometric hand scanner
to clock in and out at work. The employee feared that using Consul's hand scanner here
would be tantamount to the mark of the beast and could lead to his identification with the
Antichrist. So what was the outcome of this case? The district court ultimately ruled in favor of
the employee because the company here had failed to make available to a sincere religious objector
the same reasonable accommodation that it offered to other employees.
So having explored what this technology is, the privacy and information security concerns,
let's turn to talking about the current state of the law. Presently, 11 states in the U.S. have
passed statutes banning mandatory human microchips. In California, it is unlawful for anyone, not just
employers, but anyone to require, coerce, or compel any other individual to undergo having this device
implanted. Similarly, in Wisconsin, they have a statute that recites that no person may require
an individual to undergo the implanting of a microchip. Other states that have enacted similar
protective legislation are Maryland, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Utah.
A few states, however, have enacted legislation that only forbids employers from requiring
employees to be microchipped. Missouri, Arkansas, Indiana, and Montana also protect independent
contractors and prohibit any state agency or local government from requiring people to be microchipped.
And at the time of this presentation, the states with pending legislation on this issue are Rhode Island, Iowa, Tennessee, and New Jersey.
Now, in terms of the state that has the most restrictive legislation on this technology,
Nevada takes the lead here. While not a total ban, as previously proposed in 2017,
Nevada Assembly Bill 226 prohibits any officer or employee of the state, or any political
subdivision thereof, or any other person from, from doing the following three things. One,
requiring another person to undergo having this device implanted. Two, establishing a program that
authorizes a person to voluntarily elect to undergo this procedure. And lastly, participating
in a program established by another person, if the program authorizes a person to voluntarily
elect to undergo this procedure. So where do we go from here? In a seminal law review article
written in 1890 by Warren and Brandeis, they wrote, while this still holds true,
the design of the law must be to protect those persons with whose affairs the community has no
legitimate concern from being dragged into an undesirable and undesired publicity, and to
protect all persons whatsoever, their position or station, from having matters which they may
properly prefer to keep private, made public against their will.
And keeping with the spirit of those, those words expressed by Brandeis and Warren, it is the sole
responsibility also of technologists to design products that can protect users from having their
personal, financial, and health data from being made public against their will, and also for users
to be well informed of their privacy rights. The onus here can't be on the law alone to protect
all persons. And it's that trinity of shared responsibility here versus a total ban on the
technology that can sustain designing a future for all to enjoy. Now I like to end my talks on
uplifting notes. And on that note, Frank, take it away.
I've got you under my skin.
I've got you deep in the heart of me.
So deep in my heart that you're really a part of me.
Deep in my heart that you're really a part of me.
I've got you under my skin.
I tried so not to give in.
I said to myself, this affair never will go so well.
But why should I try to resist when, baby, I know so well.
I've got you under my skin.
I'd sacrifice anything, come what might, for the sake of having you near, in spite of a warning
voice that comes in the night and repeats, repeats in my ear. Don't you know, little fool,
you never can win. Use your mentality. Wake up to reality.
All right, that was fear, uncertainty, and doubt about human microchip implants. We actually have
Johnna Smith with us here right now. If there's any questions, please direct them to the Q&A
Discord chat. Thank you for the very interesting talk.
Thank you for having me. It was a pleasure. Happy to stand by to answer any questions
that you all may have. I see some typing in the chat. We'll see if there's
any questions here. All right, we've got one. Do you think any states might try to ban voluntary
microchip implanting? Thank you for the question. It's a possibility. It's striking that
Nevada has passed the most restrictive legislation on this that, going back to the
slide that listed the three circumstances in which it could be banned. One, if a person is
required to undergo this procedure. So there's an involuntariness aspect to that. And then the
second part is someone who voluntarily elects to undergo this. Specifically, the statute,
Nevada Bill Assembly Bill 226, recites that establishing a program that authorizes a person
to voluntarily elect to undergo the implantation of such a microchip or permanent identification
marker. So I would say Nevada's legislation here is directly on point with your question.
And to my knowledge, this state ranks as the most restrictive. Thank you.
That is a bit surprising from Nevada. We've got another question. What do you think about
the Elon Musk brain implant that would stream music to our brains? Personally,
I think that's the beginning of something very bad.
Very interesting question. I have to admit, I'm not familiar with Mr. Musk's proposal to have a
device implanted in our craniums to stream music. After this talk, I need to Google that.
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that particular device, only with the
implants that can be implanted surgically into your hand.
All right, we've got another. You sound generally positive about the technology.
Really, there are no side effects and no negatives?
Thank you for the question. I wouldn't say that I'm overly positive about it or negative.
Inherently, I don't think technology is good or bad. It's how we decide to use it. The presentation,
I tried to present the arguments on both sides here, the controversy surrounding the use
in an objective way, but also use humor. There's a great quote by Soren Kierkegaard that when
looking at life's horrors, sometimes the only sensible thing to do is to laugh. The comedic
tone is to highlight that. There are significant privacy concerns here, as well as information
security concerns, and religious objections as well. Several religious groups are concerned that
this technology, as the presentation mentioned, could lead to identification with the Antichrist
in that 2013 court case. There are compelling arguments to be made on both sides, but again,
it's how the technology is being used as a tool that determines whether or not it's being used
for malicious purposes or something beneficial for society. The benefits of this technology are
the speed and convenience, but again, that comes at a price and one that deserves careful scrutiny,
particularly how the third-party business records doctrine will extend here, not only with the
Supreme Court's ruling on this in the 1970s with business records, how those are treated,
but with the recent case of U.S. v. Carpenter in 2018, where the court narrowed the scope of
the third-party records doctrine with respect to the Fourth Amendment, how that will play out
with this technology is a fascinating open question. Thank you. Thank you, that was a very thoughtful
answer. And it looks like we have one last question. Within the world now, do you see any
particular governments seeking mandatory implants to track and monitor citizens, for example China,
with their social tracking scores and such? Great question. What will the future look like
come 2030 with this technology? Presently, I'm not aware of any country compelling people to
insert this technology into themselves. Again, in Sweden, it is voluntary, and Sweden ranks as having
the most people there using this technology. And it was interesting, not only has this technology
been embraced in accessing the gym, accessing your workspace, cashless payment systems, riding the
train, there's a piece of legislation in Sweden that by 2023, they aim to have a totally cashless
system on the train, and there's talk of having this technology also used as your ticket, your e-ticket,
for air travel. But I'm not aware of any country using this in a coercive manner, compelling
the people to insert it into themselves. But come 2030, as this technology becomes more prevalent,
that's a very valid concern. Thank you. Yeah, I've got one myself. When we see all of these different
social things like being able to take the train, being able to pay for stuff, making all those
common life things a lot easier, is that really a voluntary thing when there's so much social pressure
to want to get this, to make it your life easier?
I see. So the question is, if this technology becomes so prevalent, and in order to participate
in today's society and interact with people, would you necessarily need this to become
active in society? Well, you have the freedom of choice whether you want this. I would think
that alternatives would also be developed, that you don't have that fear of missing out, FOMO.
But if I can draw an analogy to social media, not everyone uses social media, but they are still able
to have an active social life, that would be the best analogy I can come up with on the spot of
whether or not, if I didn't have this technology, can I still talk with my friends? Can I still
participate in day-to-day life? You can still enjoy life without being a member of Facebook.
Mm-hmm. Thank you.
All right. Thank you very much for joining us today.