[00:23.740 --> 00:33.500] Welcome to another episode of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. [00:34.460 --> 00:41.660] Streaming exclusively from Disney Negative with your host, Jada. [00:42.360 --> 00:48.880] Hi, friends. Last week, we talked about the dangers of running with scissors. [00:49.380 --> 01:01.260] This week, chip implants. No, not those, but this. Human microchip implants. [01:01.260 --> 01:08.460] Imagine, with just the swipe of one's microchipped hand against a digital reader device, [01:08.460 --> 01:18.520] being able to unlock that door to one's office, garage, or home. Today, more than 50,000 people [01:18.520 --> 01:27.240] worldwide have elected to receive microchip implants. Some even affectionately call themselves [01:27.240 --> 01:35.620] human cyborgs. But first, let's briefly talk about what this technology is, [01:35.620 --> 01:45.540] and then we'll catapult into the controversy surrounding its use. So how does the chip work? [01:46.020 --> 01:52.540] Well, the microchips are encased in a shell slightly larger than a grain of rice. [01:52.540 --> 02:00.100] Now, the average cost of this procedure is $150, and that's to have this microchip, [02:00.100 --> 02:06.860] about the size of a grain of rice, surgically inserted between one's thumb and index finger. [02:06.960 --> 02:15.180] And also for $150, you can buy 320 pounds of rice at Walmart. And as the comedian Mitch [02:15.180 --> 02:22.830] Hedberg teaches us, rice is great whenever you're hungry and you want 2,000 of something. [02:23.540 --> 02:33.580] But I digress. So chip implants are especially popular in Sweden, where more than 4,000 Swedes [02:33.580 --> 02:40.340] have replaced their traditional key cards for chip implants to use for access at the gym, [02:40.460 --> 02:46.600] e-tickets on the railway, and even to store emergency contact information and their social [02:46.600 --> 02:56.800] media profiles. In the U.S., however, this technology's reception has not been as enthusiastic. [02:58.140 --> 03:05.260] While chip implants are gradually being embraced, perhaps better to say inserted, [03:05.260 --> 03:13.440] some lawmakers are taking preemptive action to prohibit forced microchipping. [03:14.220 --> 03:22.520] Now, the first U.S. company to begin offering employees free microchip implants was a Wisconsin [03:22.520 --> 03:31.600] vending machine software company in 2017. This alarmed some lawmakers, however, who felt it was [03:31.600 --> 03:39.000] quote, a rabbit hole I don't think we should go down, unquote. Instead, [03:39.440 --> 03:47.780] they proposed banning human microchip implants entirely. Oh, and speaking of rabbit holes, [03:47.780 --> 03:56.920] another rabbit hole is the Bill Gates microchip conspiracy theory. Now, PolitiFact debunked this [03:56.920 --> 04:03.960] unfounded claim that the coronavirus pandemic was part of a plan by Microsoft founder Bill [04:03.960 --> 04:11.380] Gates to establish a vaccination program to implant trackable microchips in people. [04:11.380 --> 04:21.840] Facebook also flagged this spurious claim after the post was shared by more than 44,000 users. [04:21.840 --> 04:28.980] Additionally, the BBC debunked this myth after the leader of the Russian Communist Party [04:28.980 --> 04:38.140] accused globalists of supporting, quote, a covert mass chip implantation, which they may in time [04:38.140 --> 04:46.280] resort to under the pretext of a mandatory vaccination against coronavirus, unquote. [04:46.720 --> 04:54.380] So, tossing conspiracy theories aside, how do these chip implants actually work? [04:54.600 --> 05:02.080] Well, not all chip implants are designed alike. Some chips communicate using radio frequency [05:02.080 --> 05:10.780] identification, known as RFID, and are passive transponders. What does that mean? [05:10.780 --> 05:17.520] Well, according to the Seattle-based biohacking company called Dangerous Things, [05:17.520 --> 05:25.660] passive means that it allows a small computer chip with no battery or power source to be powered by [05:25.660 --> 05:33.220] and communicate with a device reader using the magnetic field generated by it. [05:33.600 --> 05:38.540] Given the chip's petite size, an example on this slide is one that is [05:38.540 --> 05:46.420] two millimeters by 12 millimeters, the digital reader can be positioned a few inches next to [05:46.420 --> 05:56.620] one's microchipped hand to communicate. Now, apart from RFID, Sweden's top provider of chip implants, [05:56.620 --> 06:05.000] Biohacks International, produces primarily near-field communication chips, known as NFC [06:05.000 --> 06:13.020] chips. Now, these are commonly used in mobile payments and contactless credit cards. Basically, [06:13.020 --> 06:20.060] they use electromagnetic radio fields to wirelessly communicate with digital readers [06:20.060 --> 06:27.600] that are in close proximity, much like our smartphones do. These chips are also passive, [06:27.600 --> 06:34.940] meaning that they store information that other devices can read, but the NFC chip itself [06:34.940 --> 06:44.480] doesn't read that information. According to Biohacks, a benefit of NFC chips is their widespread [06:44.480 --> 06:53.900] international use across a variety of services and products that support the NFC global standard. [06:53.900 --> 07:00.260] In turn, this allows for more streamlined integration and use with existing infrastructure [07:00.870 --> 07:08.750] and across public and private sectors. So, if these chips are passive, [07:08.900 --> 07:14.480] why are some U.S. lawmakers calling for a preemptive ban? [07:15.970 --> 07:23.320] On the one microchipped hand, this technology offers attractive benefits of convenience and [07:23.320 --> 07:30.420] speed. Again, imagine just by swiping your hand, you can quickly buy that pound of rice. [07:31.140 --> 07:39.520] On the other microchipped hand, this technology also raises significant privacy concerns. [07:40.260 --> 07:48.120] A general privacy and information security concern here with NFC technology is that it could allow [07:48.120 --> 07:57.960] third parties to eavesdrop on device communication, corrupt data, or wage interception attacks. [07:58.040 --> 08:06.520] The NFSC.org warns that interception attacks are when someone intercepts the data transmitted [08:06.520 --> 08:16.400] between two NFC devices and then alters that data as it's being relayed. Like any device, [08:16.400 --> 08:22.540] really, these personal chips have security vulnerabilities which could potentially be [08:22.540 --> 08:30.840] exploited for malicious purposes, even if the chip is physically embedded underneath the skin, [08:30.840 --> 08:38.420] according to microbiologist Ben Libertin with the Stockholm Kortenska Institute. [08:39.100 --> 08:46.200] Mr. Libertin warns that these chips can reveal a lot of personal information about our health, [08:46.200 --> 08:52.960] location information, how often we're working and for how long, and even such intimate details as [08:52.960 --> 08:57.900] the frequency of our coffee breaks or trips to the restroom. [08:58.940 --> 09:03.020] Another privacy concern that deserves careful scrutiny [09:03.680 --> 09:10.240] is to what extent could this data be legally shared with third parties? [09:11.840 --> 09:18.880] Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling that squarely addresses this. That is, [09:18.880 --> 09:25.900] the treatment of microchip implants as third parties. Under the third-party records doctrine, [09:25.900 --> 09:33.600] however, determined by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1979, in the case of Smith v. Maryland, [09:33.600 --> 09:39.500] the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third [09:39.500 --> 09:47.160] party and conveyed by him to government authorities even if that information is revealed [09:47.160 --> 09:53.080] on the assumption it will be used for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third [09:53.080 --> 10:01.960] party won't be betrayed. In sum, it remains an open question as to whether these devices count [10:01.960 --> 10:12.180] as third parties or not. In addition, religious objections are also being raised against [10:12.180 --> 10:20.460] hand scanners and other biometric technology in the workplace. Now, here we have a case from 2013 [10:21.160 --> 10:27.360] where a religious objection was raised. Quick rundown of the facts. A coal miner in West [10:27.360 --> 10:35.060] Virginia filed a Title VII religious discrimination case against his employer, Consul Energy, [10:35.060 --> 10:40.580] for refusing to accommodate his religious objection to using the biometric hand scanner [10:40.580 --> 10:47.360] to clock in and out at work. The employee feared that using Consul's hand scanner here [10:47.360 --> 10:53.680] would be tantamount to the mark of the beast and could lead to his identification with the [10:53.680 --> 11:01.600] Antichrist. So what was the outcome of this case? The district court ultimately ruled in favor of [11:01.600 --> 11:08.620] the employee because the company here had failed to make available to a sincere religious objector [11:08.620 --> 11:14.320] the same reasonable accommodation that it offered to other employees. [11:16.000 --> 11:23.460] So having explored what this technology is, the privacy and information security concerns, [11:23.460 --> 11:31.300] let's turn to talking about the current state of the law. Presently, 11 states in the U.S. have [11:31.300 --> 11:42.420] passed statutes banning mandatory human microchips. In California, it is unlawful for anyone, not just [11:42.420 --> 11:50.980] employers, but anyone to require, coerce, or compel any other individual to undergo having this device [11:50.980 --> 11:57.920] implanted. Similarly, in Wisconsin, they have a statute that recites that no person may require [11:57.920 --> 12:05.300] an individual to undergo the implanting of a microchip. Other states that have enacted similar [12:05.300 --> 12:12.940] protective legislation are Maryland, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Utah. [12:14.740 --> 12:23.420] A few states, however, have enacted legislation that only forbids employers from requiring [12:23.420 --> 12:31.720] employees to be microchipped. Missouri, Arkansas, Indiana, and Montana also protect independent [12:31.720 --> 12:39.660] contractors and prohibit any state agency or local government from requiring people to be microchipped. [12:40.620 --> 12:50.580] And at the time of this presentation, the states with pending legislation on this issue are Rhode Island, Iowa, Tennessee, and New Jersey. [12:52.540 --> 12:58.700] Now, in terms of the state that has the most restrictive legislation on this technology, [12:58.700 --> 13:06.260] Nevada takes the lead here. While not a total ban, as previously proposed in 2017, [13:06.900 --> 13:14.260] Nevada Assembly Bill 226 prohibits any officer or employee of the state, or any political [13:14.260 --> 13:21.220] subdivision thereof, or any other person from, from doing the following three things. One, [13:21.220 --> 13:28.500] requiring another person to undergo having this device implanted. Two, establishing a program that [13:28.500 --> 13:36.280] authorizes a person to voluntarily elect to undergo this procedure. And lastly, participating [13:36.280 --> 13:43.340] in a program established by another person, if the program authorizes a person to voluntarily [13:43.340 --> 13:56.040] elect to undergo this procedure. So where do we go from here? In a seminal law review article [13:56.040 --> 14:04.680] written in 1890 by Warren and Brandeis, they wrote, while this still holds true, [14:04.680 --> 14:11.120] the design of the law must be to protect those persons with whose affairs the community has no [14:11.120 --> 14:18.060] legitimate concern from being dragged into an undesirable and undesired publicity, and to [14:18.060 --> 14:24.840] protect all persons whatsoever, their position or station, from having matters which they may [14:24.840 --> 14:30.000] properly prefer to keep private, made public against their will. [14:31.700 --> 14:38.220] And keeping with the spirit of those, those words expressed by Brandeis and Warren, it is the sole [14:38.220 --> 14:44.940] responsibility also of technologists to design products that can protect users from having their [14:44.940 --> 14:52.640] personal, financial, and health data from being made public against their will, and also for users [14:52.640 --> 14:59.840] to be well informed of their privacy rights. The onus here can't be on the law alone to protect [14:59.840 --> 15:08.220] all persons. And it's that trinity of shared responsibility here versus a total ban on the [15:08.220 --> 15:18.440] technology that can sustain designing a future for all to enjoy. Now I like to end my talks on [15:18.440 --> 15:24.980] uplifting notes. And on that note, Frank, take it away. [15:29.620 --> 15:35.840] I've got you under my skin. [15:37.220 --> 15:43.980] I've got you deep in the heart of me. [15:44.920 --> 15:50.840] So deep in my heart that you're really a part of me. [15:50.860 --> 15:52.760] Deep in my heart that you're really a part of me. [15:52.760 --> 15:59.680] I've got you under my skin. [16:00.000 --> 16:06.380] I tried so not to give in. [16:07.620 --> 16:14.860] I said to myself, this affair never will go so well. [16:15.560 --> 16:22.600] But why should I try to resist when, baby, I know so well. [16:23.100 --> 16:29.340] I've got you under my skin. [16:30.580 --> 16:39.520] I'd sacrifice anything, come what might, for the sake of having you near, in spite of a warning [16:39.520 --> 16:48.640] voice that comes in the night and repeats, repeats in my ear. Don't you know, little fool, [16:49.060 --> 16:59.040] you never can win. Use your mentality. Wake up to reality. [17:03.390 --> 17:10.770] All right, that was fear, uncertainty, and doubt about human microchip implants. We actually have [17:10.770 --> 17:17.270] Johnna Smith with us here right now. If there's any questions, please direct them to the Q&A [17:17.270 --> 17:25.530] Discord chat. Thank you for the very interesting talk. [17:27.270 --> 17:31.610] Thank you for having me. It was a pleasure. Happy to stand by to answer any questions [17:31.610 --> 17:45.520] that you all may have. I see some typing in the chat. We'll see if there's [17:45.980 --> 18:00.980] any questions here. All right, we've got one. Do you think any states might try to ban voluntary [18:00.980 --> 18:14.200] microchip implanting? Thank you for the question. It's a possibility. It's striking that [18:14.760 --> 18:21.720] Nevada has passed the most restrictive legislation on this that, going back to the [18:21.720 --> 18:29.880] slide that listed the three circumstances in which it could be banned. One, if a person is [18:29.880 --> 18:36.700] required to undergo this procedure. So there's an involuntariness aspect to that. And then the [18:36.700 --> 18:42.780] second part is someone who voluntarily elects to undergo this. Specifically, the statute, [18:42.780 --> 18:50.040] Nevada Bill Assembly Bill 226, recites that establishing a program that authorizes a person [18:50.040 --> 18:57.000] to voluntarily elect to undergo the implantation of such a microchip or permanent identification [18:57.000 --> 19:05.220] marker. So I would say Nevada's legislation here is directly on point with your question. [19:05.220 --> 19:11.340] And to my knowledge, this state ranks as the most restrictive. Thank you. [19:11.340 --> 19:19.100] That is a bit surprising from Nevada. We've got another question. What do you think about [19:19.100 --> 19:24.220] the Elon Musk brain implant that would stream music to our brains? Personally, [19:24.220 --> 19:27.620] I think that's the beginning of something very bad. [19:29.540 --> 19:36.840] Very interesting question. I have to admit, I'm not familiar with Mr. Musk's proposal to have a [19:36.840 --> 19:44.140] device implanted in our craniums to stream music. After this talk, I need to Google that. [19:44.780 --> 19:49.830] I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that particular device, only with the [19:51.240 --> 19:55.940] implants that can be implanted surgically into your hand. [19:58.560 --> 20:03.340] All right, we've got another. You sound generally positive about the technology. [20:03.340 --> 20:06.620] Really, there are no side effects and no negatives? [20:09.700 --> 20:15.840] Thank you for the question. I wouldn't say that I'm overly positive about it or negative. [20:16.540 --> 20:24.620] Inherently, I don't think technology is good or bad. It's how we decide to use it. The presentation, [20:25.100 --> 20:32.240] I tried to present the arguments on both sides here, the controversy surrounding the use [20:32.240 --> 20:39.040] in an objective way, but also use humor. There's a great quote by Soren Kierkegaard that when [20:39.040 --> 20:45.600] looking at life's horrors, sometimes the only sensible thing to do is to laugh. The comedic [20:45.600 --> 20:54.300] tone is to highlight that. There are significant privacy concerns here, as well as information [20:54.300 --> 21:01.380] security concerns, and religious objections as well. Several religious groups are concerned that [21:01.380 --> 21:08.220] this technology, as the presentation mentioned, could lead to identification with the Antichrist [21:08.220 --> 21:16.120] in that 2013 court case. There are compelling arguments to be made on both sides, but again, [21:16.120 --> 21:23.400] it's how the technology is being used as a tool that determines whether or not it's being used [21:23.400 --> 21:30.260] for malicious purposes or something beneficial for society. The benefits of this technology are [21:30.260 --> 21:38.100] the speed and convenience, but again, that comes at a price and one that deserves careful scrutiny, [21:38.100 --> 21:46.860] particularly how the third-party business records doctrine will extend here, not only with the [21:46.860 --> 21:52.960] Supreme Court's ruling on this in the 1970s with business records, how those are treated, [21:52.960 --> 22:01.640] but with the recent case of U.S. v. Carpenter in 2018, where the court narrowed the scope of [22:01.640 --> 22:07.040] the third-party records doctrine with respect to the Fourth Amendment, how that will play out [22:07.040 --> 22:14.840] with this technology is a fascinating open question. Thank you. Thank you, that was a very thoughtful [22:14.840 --> 22:21.340] answer. And it looks like we have one last question. Within the world now, do you see any [22:21.340 --> 22:26.680] particular governments seeking mandatory implants to track and monitor citizens, for example China, [22:26.680 --> 22:34.920] with their social tracking scores and such? Great question. What will the future look like [22:34.920 --> 22:43.680] come 2030 with this technology? Presently, I'm not aware of any country compelling people to [22:43.680 --> 22:53.500] insert this technology into themselves. Again, in Sweden, it is voluntary, and Sweden ranks as having [22:53.500 --> 23:04.340] the most people there using this technology. And it was interesting, not only has this technology [23:04.340 --> 23:12.480] been embraced in accessing the gym, accessing your workspace, cashless payment systems, riding the [23:12.480 --> 23:18.540] train, there's a piece of legislation in Sweden that by 2023, they aim to have a totally cashless [23:18.540 --> 23:26.180] system on the train, and there's talk of having this technology also used as your ticket, your e-ticket, [23:26.180 --> 23:33.920] for air travel. But I'm not aware of any country using this in a coercive manner, compelling [23:34.400 --> 23:42.040] the people to insert it into themselves. But come 2030, as this technology becomes more prevalent, [23:42.040 --> 23:51.080] that's a very valid concern. Thank you. Yeah, I've got one myself. When we see all of these different [23:52.220 --> 23:57.480] social things like being able to take the train, being able to pay for stuff, making all those [23:57.480 --> 24:05.600] common life things a lot easier, is that really a voluntary thing when there's so much social pressure [24:05.600 --> 24:11.620] to want to get this, to make it your life easier? [24:12.600 --> 24:23.460] I see. So the question is, if this technology becomes so prevalent, and in order to participate [24:23.460 --> 24:33.100] in today's society and interact with people, would you necessarily need this to become [24:33.900 --> 24:45.920] active in society? Well, you have the freedom of choice whether you want this. I would think [24:45.920 --> 24:52.980] that alternatives would also be developed, that you don't have that fear of missing out, FOMO. [24:54.560 --> 25:03.120] But if I can draw an analogy to social media, not everyone uses social media, but they are still able [25:03.120 --> 25:11.580] to have an active social life, that would be the best analogy I can come up with on the spot of [25:11.580 --> 25:16.340] whether or not, if I didn't have this technology, can I still talk with my friends? Can I still [25:16.340 --> 25:22.680] participate in day-to-day life? You can still enjoy life without being a member of Facebook. [25:22.680 --> 25:25.000] Mm-hmm. Thank you. [25:25.000 --> 25:27.960] All right. Thank you very much for joining us today.