5 Feb
2007
this blog
about
site use
contact
archive
2007
2006
earlier
related
sites
Caslon
Ketupa
|
chips
Whither VeriMed - RFID implants in living people.
the devil's tag?
The New York Times reports that Applied Digital
Solutions - the US corporation that has promoted RFID
applications such as implanting 'VeriMed' tags in humans to
identify lost children, wandering grannies, dismembered pieces
of Mexican law enforcement officials or people in mortuaries
- is planning a US$30 million IPO of its VeriChip arm.
VeriChip has been criticised, often with more vehemence than
understanding, as ushering in The End Times through provision
of the "Mark of the Beast". For chiliasts such as
CASPIAN - going emo over RFIDs in supermarket aisles and in
people - RFIDs have replaced the barcode as the bugaboo
du jour.
VeriChip has more modestly claimed that it is merely concerned
to provide a secure and reliable way to link individuals with
their medical records, including situations where a patient
is unconscious or not lucid.
We have noted that, religious anxieties aside, the key concerns
regarding RFID implants are -
- patient
consent
- potential
health consequences
- privacy
Those
concerns are not necessarily insuperable and are common to
other identification technologies such as biometrics
(some of which, for example fingerprints, have been in use
for around 100 years and have been so assimilated into popular
culture that they are largely uncontentious).
Stepping away from angst about a satanic panoptic sort, an
angst that is not shared by all faiths (as not all accept
the authority of the book of Revelation or of other
texts such as Leviticus),
it is clear that implanting RFID tags into living creatures
is technically feasible and may permit achievement of desirable
consequences. Many Australian companion animals - the family
dog and cat - have been 'chipped' and entered on national
registers that allow a wandering moggie or injured pup to
be reunited with loved ones.
If VeriChip is doing the Devil's work, Old Nick isn't
getting much return on his investment. Presumably the dark
forces are less concerned than private
equity fund managers about burn rate, churn and exit times.
The Times reports that VeriChip lost US$3.45 million
on sales of US$20.34 million in the first nine months of 2006,
with most revenue relating to sales of non-implanted RFID
tags - traditional collars and bracelets - for tracking elderly
patients in nursing homes and babies in hospitals.
On the basis of documents filed with the US Securities &
Exchange Commission the Times notes that VeriChip
has been trying to gain industry acceptance of implants by
giving doctors and hospitals the equipment needed to read
the chips and link the number in each tag to patient records.
Aggregate revenue from implants and associated services is
reported to be less than US$100,000, unsurprising when a mere
222 patients have received implants since approval was given
by the US FDA in 2004. Some 1,200 doctors have registered
to take part in VeriMed trials; around 400 medical facilities
have the scanners (essentially a hand-held device that looks
much like an oldfashioned barcode reader).
a perspective
RFID implants offer a perspective on initiatives such as the
Australian government's new national Access Card, the stealth
version of the Australia
Card. They also offer a perspective on the proliferation
and potential misuse of ubiquitous biometric identifiers,
as individuals in practice cannot change their fingerprints,
facial structures or DNA - all of which may be garnered in
public/private databases and integrated with other data collections
and decision support systems.
Personal identification is not necessarily a bad thing. The
key issue is how that identification is managed.
Is it protected through a robust and comprehensive privacy
regime that provides an appropriate balance between the rights
of the individual and those of the community? Australian law,
for example, features inappropriate biases towards particular
commercial and other interests and is weakened through omissions
that will be of increasing concern.
Is legislation and codes of practice actively policed by government
agencies, by industry, by civil society advocates and by individuals?
Implementation of privacy law has been eroded by lack of will
and underresourcing of some government agencies. There is
little point having watchdogs that lack an interest in barking
and have no teeth with which to bite. There is a crucial difference
between a watchdog and a lapdog.
Much of the advocacy by proponents and opponents of RFID implants
has inhibited meaningful discourse, with VeriChip for example
over-selling applications and critics refusing to recognise
potential value. Polarisation has resulted in a failure to
grapple with questions about broader management of privacy.
We for example would be more impressed by CASPIAN if that
advocacy organisation addressed issues relating to collection
of consumer information by financial institutions, trade in
that information and provision of information to government
agencies. For many purposes it is unnecessary to mark individuals
with an implanted tag or with a barcode on the forehead (or
backside). The panoptic sort discussed by Oscar Gandy can
be undertaken by integrating data from credit card purchases,
subscriptions, blogs and of course the information that people
willingly disclose to marketers for the chance to
win a prize.
The Times quotes EPIC's
Marc Rotenberg as commenting
This
technology sends the Orwell meter into the red zone. There's
almost no scenario under which the benefit can't be obtained
from an anklet or a bracelet. The only reason to implant
it is so that it can't be removed voluntarily, which makes
it a human rights issue.
Rotenberg
is correct - implants, indeed data collection and integration
per se, is a human rights issue. How do we conceptualise privacy
as a right and ensure adequate protection for that right,
concentrating on the right rather than an isolated technology
or a specific application of that technology.
::
|
recent
entries
hh
|
