The Legal Ramifications of Microchipping People in the United States of America - a State Legislative Comparison
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Commerce - Papers (Archive) Faculty of Business and Law 2009 The legal ramifications of microchipping people in the United States of America - a state legislative comparison Angelo Friggieri University of Wollongong Katina Michael University of Wollongong, [email protected] M G. Michael University of Wollongong, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers Part of the Business Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Friggieri, Angelo; Michael, Katina; and Michael, M G.: The legal ramifications of microchipping people in the United States of America - a state legislative comparison 2009. https://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/3020 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] The legal ramifications of microchipping people in the United States of America - a state legislative comparison Abstract The ability to microchip people for unique positive identification, and for tracking and monitoring applications is becoming increasingly scrutinized by the legal profession, civil libertarians, politicians in positions of power, human rights advocates, and last but not least, citizens across jurisdictions. The United States is among the few nations internationally, that have moved to enact state-level legislation, regarding the microchipping of people in a variety of contexts. This paper provides an overview of nine state laws/bills in the United States of America that have either enacted anti-chipping legislation or have recently proposed bills regarding the enforced chipping of persons. The aim of the paper is to highlight excerpts of legislation, to identify relevant stakeholders the legislation is directed toward and to briefly describe how it may affect their chipping practices. As a final outcome, the paper seeks ot broadly compare state legislation, identifying differences in penalties and fines, and ot show the complexity of this kind of approach to protecting the rights of citizens against unscrupulous uses of advanced information technologies. Disciplines Business | Social and Behavioral Sciences Publication Details Friggieri, A., Michael, K. & Michael, M. G. (2009). The legal ramifications of microchipping people in the United States of America- a state legislative comparison. IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (pp. 1-8). Los Alamitos, USA: IEEE. This conference paper is available at Research Online: https://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/3020 The Legal Ramifications of Microchipping People in the United States of America- a State Legislative Comparison Angelo Friggieri, Katina Michael, M.G. Michael School of Information Systems and Technology, Faculty of Informatics, University of Wollongong [email protected], {katina, mgm}@uow.edu.au Abstract identification mechanism allowing for the collection of individual patient diagnostic data. The ability to microchip people for unique positive In 1987, beyond unique ID, a location tracking device identification, and for tracking and monitoring was patented by a plastic surgeon Dr Daniel Man [6], applications is becoming increasingly scrutinized by the residing in Florida in the United States. The abstract legal profession, civil libertarians, politicians in positions description of the patent reads: “[a] new apparatus for of power, human rights advocates, and last but not least, location and monitoring of humans has been developed. citizens across jurisdictions. The United States is among The device employs a unique programmable signal the few nations internationally, that have moved to enact generator and detection system to locate and monitor the state-level legislation, regarding the microchipping of movement of individuals. It additionally utilizes a people in a variety of contexts. This paper provides an physiological monitoring system to signal a warning for overview of nine state laws/bills in the United States of the necessity for immediate help. The device is small America that have either enacted anti-chipping legislation enough to be implanted in young children as well as or have recently proposed bills regarding the enforced adults. The power supply and signal generator are chipping of persons. The aim of the paper is to highlight designed to function at a low duty cycle for prolonged excerpts of legislation, to identify relevant stakeholders periods before recharging” [7]. the legislation is directed toward and to briefly describe how it may affect their chipping practices. As a final 2. Advancements in Implantable Technology outcome, the paper seeks to broadly compare state and the Law legislation, identifying differences in penalties and fines, and to show the complexity of this kind of approach to The challenges brought about by implantable protecting the rights of citizens against unscrupulous uses technology, outside the biomedical arena, were for the of advanced information technologies. greater part ignored until the mid-1990s. Few could debate against the obvious benefits brought about by the 1. Introduction advancement of medical-related technologies to patients suffering from curable diseases or illnesses, and the The capability to implant people with microchips has lifestyle enhancements they promised and delivered, its roots in the field of medicine as far back as the especially in the area of prosthesis. Even today, few could innovation of pacemakers in the late 1950s [1, 2]. argue that implants for genuine therapeutic purposes pose Embedded chip-on-a-card technology, that could identify any real danger to society at large if applied correctly; in the cardholder, commonly known as smart cards or fact they act to prolong life and aid sufferers to go about integrated circuit cards, was patented and prototyped for living as normal life as possible. the first time in France by Roland Moreno in 1974 [3]. We can point to medical breakthroughs, such as those But it was not until 1998, that official reports of the first by Alfred Mann, that are likely to help hundreds of demonstrated microchip implantation in a human for thousands of people in the future, to better cope with the identification and tracking purposes was achieved by treatments of diabetes, cancer, autoimmune and Professor Kevin Warwick of the University of Reading in inflammatory diseases via automated drug delivery the Cyborg 1.0 experiment [4]. While United States technologies [8]. Implantable technologies have already patents date back to the 1970s, regarding apparatus helped the deaf hear, and are likely to help the blind see, allowing subcutaneous implants, such as guns for and to correct functional neural deficits using dispensing “pellets” comprising a case with a hollow electrostimulation techniques and much more. The needle attached to it [5], it was not until later that patents promise of nanotechnology, has brought with it the pertaining to medical devices stipulated a unique prospect of implantable treatments for Parkinson’s Disease, epilepsy, Tourette’s syndrome (which is now beyond the experimental stage), and even obsessive limited to the point that commercial diffusion of RFID compulsive disorder (OCD). implants only occurred in 2003, with pre-registration Responsible, well-tested, and regulated applications of beginning in 2002 [16]. Ramesh explains that the human nanotechnology within the biomedical domain can only body is not generally accepted as “property” which is her have positive impacts on the individual who is a recipient rationale behind the gap in the legal system. If property of an implant [9]. But in today’s commercial context, ownership of one’s body could be confirmed, (that is we even biomedical technologies can serve dual purposes, can claim ownership of one’s body and do what we will opening up a number of critical moral questions [10] with it) then property law would apply as protection regarding who is actually in control [11] and at what cost giving an individual the right to refuse of implantation of [12]. For as Mark N. Gasson writes regarding information the microchip without any consequences as the and communication technology (ICT) implantable individuals body is his or her ‘owned property’ (Ramesh, devices, “[a] number of wider moral, ethical and legal 1997). However this same legislation would bring with it issues stem from enhancement applications and it is a mine-field of other problems to do with ownership and difficult to foresee the social consequences, the the rights associated with “selling” one’s body or fundamental changes on our very conception of self and individual body parts. the impact on our identity of adoption long term. As a After the events of September 11, 2001 and the result, it is necessary to acknowledge the possibilities and enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, Herbert [15] is timely to have debate to address the wider implications analyzed current State and Federal laws within the context these possibilities may bring” [13]. of employer practices across the United States. Herbert It is the “legal issues” pertaining to ICT implants describes the laws and relevant cases in his paper, along which have been addressed only by a few researchers and with potential solutions. Herbert justifies his research by their respective groups. As there are now several addressing the concern over American Labor Laws commercial organizations marketing a variety of granting employers greater