Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags, or microchips, are used in everything from clothing labels to passports in order to identify and track the movement of goods.
Sounds practical and pretty harmless, but a few pioneering tech-heads are taking the concept one step further by implanting tags beneath their skin.
Sure, being able to open your front door by holding a microchipped hand against it would eliminate the need for those pesky house keys, but are subdermal implants the exclusive domain of kooky nerds? Would you willingly submit to this futuristic technology, or does the whole thing scream "privacy-invading conspiracy"?
In this week's Whaddyareckon? we get your thoughts on human microchipping.
Is your iPod called Trevor? Tell us in the forums or in our Whaddyareckon? group on Facebook.
Like this article? Click below to send it to your mobile for free!
iconfess
20/03/2008 11:47 PM
Interesting topic. I wonder how many people who are so deadset against being microchipped also have Facebook profiles, disclosing their full name, birthdate and plans for the weekend.
Report offensive content
plumpness
21/03/2008 01:37 PM
lol iconfess i think this should definitely happen, it would eliminate so many problems plauing todays information systems.
Report offensive content
canberra_photographer
21/03/2008 08:59 PM
Well it has advantages, pay for coffee using the VISA chip in your little finger, makes keeping inventory of black market slaves easier and opens up a world of possibilities regarding door entry systems. However, would one chip do it all or would we have to have different chips? Big factor is security though, RFID has being shown to be easily hacked in credit card applications.
Report offensive content
Amanda
22/03/2008 05:26 PM
If it were properly implemented I wouldn't have a problem with it. I think there would be many benefits, not in the least health records incase of an accident. Being able to do the shopping by grabbing what you want and walking out the door (having everything charged to your account through your chip) would also be pretty sweet. Would they call it an iChip? :)
Report offensive content
Derek
23/03/2008 03:33 PM
Many well versed Christians would certainly not "chip" themselves no matter how cool it seemed or how clever it was marketed towards the masses. The micro chipping idea is definately a candidate for the Mark Of The Beast! and this is where they start with all the technology loving people of the world. First the government will make it optional and sell the"cool factor" then later it will become mandatory and you will be penalised. They did the same for microchipping your pets! Time to wake up people and read it for yourself in the Bible! You think I'm kidding? If anyone has an ear let him hear!..Revelation Chapter 13 verses 16-17.
Report offensive content
Adam
23/03/2008 07:19 PM
I can't see the point really, what are the advantages of this? Apart from the chip not being accesible to theives while inside you, there's no reason we can't keep rfid information in our wallets or cars like we already do with work access cards and etags etc. Can you imagine the NSW State Gov in charge of rolling out a project like this? Now that would be a site to behold...
Report offensive content
Bekah
24/03/2008 09:54 AM
What about the health risks involved? How long would the chips stay in our bodies? How hard are they to remove? What chemicals would they release into our blood streams? What happens if there's a malfunction? There's still soooo many things that have not been confirmed or tested. Would you like to be the guinea-pig generation of the RFID chips? I certainly would not!
Report offensive content
iconfess
24/03/2008 11:11 AM
I don't think the chip would be any less accessible to desperate thieves -- it would just hurt a lot more when they steal it. The remake of 'The Manchurian Candidate' (Denzel Washington, Meryl Streep) is worth a look for more of the implications of this sort of thing.
Report offensive content
braddelz21
24/03/2008 05:52 PM
micro chipping is one step away from a police state.
Report offensive content
jiwhite
31/05/2008 01:15 AM
What people aren't taking into account is that it's just not needed. Facial recognition is working well enough now that we don't need to implant anything inside humans to track them.
Report offensive content