"...In football-mad Argentina, fans are known for belting out an almost amorous chant to their favourite clubs: "I carry you inside me!" First-division side Tigre said it had decided to take that to the next level and is offering fans implantable microchips that will open the stadium turnstiles on match days, no ticket or ID required. "Carrying the club inside you won't just be a metaphor," the club wrote on its Twitter account. - Read more

More here

WA - Mandatory microchip implants for criminals

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Lawmakers are considering a controversial bill that would outfit sex offenders with a surgically-implanted device that tracks their movement.

The devices would replace the ankle bracelets that are currently used to track offenders. The bracelets have been criticized as a lacking device as offenders have successfully removed them in the past before disappearing off of the radar.

"(The devices would) be a little more difficult to take off," said Rep. Maralyn Chase, D-Edmonds.

Chase is among a handful of lawmakers are looking into radio chips that can be planted under the skin. Some of the designs are no larger than a grain of rice.

The radio chips would allow police to track an offender from a sex offender using the same technology used at the Tacoma Narrows bridge toll.

"Right now, we get a postcard at home every few weeks saying we have a sex offender moving into the neighborhood. But unless you know where they live and what they look like how are you going to have protection?" said Chase.

The Department of Corrections admits even with the current devices, officers often lose signal. DOC officials also note that no tracking device can prevent crime.

"It certainly is not prevention. It certainly is not 100-percent," said Anna Aylward with the state DOC.

The bill is currently in committee.

If passed, the bill would allow the state to hire the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs to determine whether chip implants would be more effective.

Similar technology is used to track criminals in the U.K. and school children in Japan.

"....There are too many filthy child predators I believe micro chipping your child would be an excellent idea as when and if god forbid, a child goes missing it would be easy to locate them. There are no guarantees of course, but have a gps tracker inserted into children would mean that parents have have a better chance of getting their child back, and children might not be raped and tortured by these sick monsters." - http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-parents-be-allowed-to-microchip-their-children

Posted
Authoralexanderhayes

https://soundcloud.com/evanbyoung/human-microchipping-literal-life-hack-or-dangerous-experiment

As the use of radiofrequency identification (RFID)- the touch technology behind Myki, access cards and payWave- increases, people are beginning to inject it into their own bodies in lieu of using cards.

Its an exciting development, bringing with it the potential for an array of revolutionary interactions between humans and technology.

But are there any downsides? And should we be tampering with nature and biology?

Originally appearing on Episode 17 of Cataclysm: The Catalyst Podcast

In a TV interview while still on the board, [Tommy] Thompson was explaining the benefits and the ease of being chipped when an interviewer interrupted:
"I'm sorry, sir. Did you just say you would get one implanted in your arm?"
"Absolutely," Thompson replied. "Without a doubt."
"No concerns at all?"
"No."
But to date, Thompson has yet to be chipped himself.

More here

5. The pros and cons of human-implanted RFID chips
The supporters of human-implanted RFID chips believe that such chips will allow the governments to locate fugitives, witnesses of crimes, and missing persons. The authorities of Indonesia’s province Irian Jaya even discussed the use of implanted RFID chips for the monitoring of persons infected with HIV. Such a monitoring will allow the authorities to act in case that some of the monitored people conducts activities that may lead to infection of other people. Probably because the existing human-implanted RFID chips do not allow GPS tracking, the authorities of Irian Jaya did not adopt legal provisions concerning the use of RFID chips. However, in the future GPS implants can be created. The appearance of such implants may renew the discussions concerning tracking of HIV-infected people.
The opponents of human-implanted RFID chips argue that such chips are associated with security risks, cause health problems, contradict to religious doctrines, and may be forcefully implemented in employees. The security risks of such devices have been already discussed in this article. In relation to health problems, the aforementioned paragraph from a document of FDA clearly indicates the risks for the health caused by RFID chips. Moreover, the opponents state that the use of human-implanted RFID chips may lead to cancer. These allegations are based on scientific studies carried out from 1996 to 2006. The studies found that lab mice and rats injected with microchips sometimes developed cancerous tumors around the microchips.
In relation to the religious doctrines, many Christians believe that the implantation of chips may be fulfillment of the prophecy of the mark of the beast mentioned in the Book of Revelation of the New Testament. The Book of Revelation states that the devil will force “all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.” It is also worth mentioning that, according to the Islam, body modifications constitute “haram,” an Arabic term meaning “forbidden.” This is because such modifications involve changing the body, a creation of Allah.
Pertaining to the forceful implantation of RFID chips, it should be pointed out that, in June 2004, a former attorney general in Mexico required eighteen employees to implement chips allowing them to access a sensitive records room. In order to prevent employers from requiring their employees to implement RFID chips, several U.S. States adopted laws prohibiting forced microchip implants in humans. These states include Wisconsin, North Dakota, California, Georgia, and Virginia.

More here

July 27, 2005 -- They're here. They have FDA approval. But are Americans ready to get chipped?
Getting chipped means having a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip implanted in your body. The chip -- about the size of a large grain of rice -- lies dormant until a special scanner is passed within 6 inches of the implant. Then it emits a radio signal that beams a 16-digit number to the scanner.
For security uses, that 16-digit number acts like an electronic key. For medical uses, the number is linked to medical records. Doctors to whom you've granted access -- emergency room doctors, for example -- can use the key to quickly get hold of your medical records.
Who would want such a thing? That depends on how you ask, says Scott Silverman, CEO of Applied Digital, which makes the FDA-approved RFID called VeriChip.
"When we first announced VeriChip, a network poll asked people if they would put one in their bodies," Silverman tells WebMD. "Only 9% said yes. After FDA approval, 19% said yes. When former HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson joined our board, the rate went up to 33%. But our own study shows that if you ask people whether they would have a VeriChip implant to identify their medical records in case of an emergency, the positive response goes to 80%."

More here

“I am bleeding just a little bit,” said Raymond McCauley. “Might I ask for a little assistance?” McCauley, chair of Singularity University’s biotechnology and bioinformatics track and a biohacker, had just implanted a microchip in his hand.
He was giving his talk at Singularity University’s Summit Europe on the $0.01 human genome, drag-and-drop genetic engineering, garage biohacking, cheese from genetically modified yeast—a whirlwind tour of future biotech.
But the real thrust of this particular talk? Cyborgs.
McCauley is aware that the idea of incorporating technology into our bodies may seem repellent or unnatural to some people. But, he said, many of us are already cyborgs. Vaccination, for example, is a kind of technological augmentation.
“We are now different than we would be as just baseline humanity,” he said.
McCauley is a hacker at heart and has no qualms about experimenting on himself to prove a point. So, in the middle of his talk, he called piercing professional Tom van Oudenaarde onstage and announced he’d be implanting a chip in his hand.
Was he nervous? A little. But by all accounts the procedure was quick and relatively painless. In fact, so much so that Singularity University cofounder, Peter Diamandis, walked onstage an hour later and got chipped too.
The chip—a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag encased in a biocompatible glass cylinder the size of a grain of rice—was implanted in a three-minute procedure, start to finish, and left a small puncture wound and a bit of soreness.
To be clear, neither the technology nor the procedure is particularly novel. Vets have been implanting pets and livestock with RFID chips for a couple decades, and human RFID implants have been happening since at least the mid-2000s.
xEM 4200 RFID tag to scale.
So, why get one? According to Diamandis, it was a spur-of-the-moment experiment to see how he’d feel having a piece of technology in his body. But he thinks that implantables, in general, could offer much more.
“In all honesty, I think biohacking, the cyborg human, is an eventuality that will materialize when the value proposition gets high enough,” Diamandis wrote in a recent blog post about his new implant.
RFID chips are passive bits of hardware powered and activated when near an RFID reader. Most people have experienced them at one time or another—cards granting access to an office or onto the subway or a bus.
Diamandis suggests near-term uses of RFID implants might be smooth interaction with the Internet of Things. We could use our hands to unlock doors, start the car, and pay for coffee. McCauley says we might keep contact information on our chip, swap said information by shaking hands—like an embedded business card.
Some of these applications are still in the future. The number of connected devices in our everyday lives are yet minimal enough that most of us wouldn’t get much use out of an embedded chip. And whether embedding it would be an improvement on keeping it somewhere outside our bodies, like on a card or in our phone, is an open question.
That said, the number of devices we might control with an implant is set to grow in the coming years. And the truly compelling “value proposition” may lie elsewhere—in health and medicine.
Currently, health monitoring is a prime argument for incorporating technology into our bodies. Known as quantified self, it’s thought that the more we know (thanks to sensors), the more we can do to prevent disease before it’s too late.
Wearable sensors, for example, have been popular in tech recently. Most of these are the kind that go around our wrists and track activity, heart rate, and the like. But there are others. McCauley, noted wireless earphones that measure vitals.
However, it’s increasingly recognized that there are problems with wearables. They’re easily forgotten at home or simply laid aside. They lack accuracy. They can measure some vital signs, but certainly not all.
One potential solution we’ve explored is sensored clothing. Indeed, an undershirt or pair of underwear orsocks are less likely to be left behind in the morning. You can see where all this is going—the more intimately connected, the more useful.
Perhaps the next steps are implantables and insideables. The fact is, if it’s a matter of better health, staying outside the hospital, maybe even living longer—people are likely to be more amenable to the idea of putting tech in their bodies.
Pacemakers are a contemporary example, and implantable insulin pumps are just around the corner. Health benefits of these implantables make them acceptable.
But beyond dire needs, like everyday body monitoring of healthy people, widespread use will likely require smaller, less invasive devices. And there's reason to believe miniaturization won't end with a chip the size of a grain of rice.
Google recently made headlines for its cancer-detecting magnetic nanoparticle project—still largely theoretical—and earlier this year, for their work on contact lenses to measure glucose in diabetics. Others are working on body-monitoring skin patches and tattoos. And we're learning to power miniature electronics at a distance using radio waves.
The day after getting his implant, McCauley returned to the stage to report. He was just fine he assured the audience. More than fine in fact. He'd made a video showing off his newly acquired powers. The message? Even today's implantable tech is relatively non-invasive and somewhat useful—two properties that will only improve in the future.
“This is how much we care about science," McCauley quipped. "We bleed for you.”
Perhaps RFID implants like these won't ever catch on in a big way. But it raises a compelling question: If implantable technology were no more invasive than a vaccination—where would you draw the line? Or would there even be a line?

More here

Jul 17, 2007—The American Medical Association (AMA) has officially established a code of ethics designed to protect patients receiving RFID implants. The recommendations focus on safeguarding a patient's privacy and health, and are the result of an evaluation by the AMA's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) regarding the medical and ethical implications of RFID chips in humans, as well as a follow-up report recently released. The latter discusses the possible advantages and specific privacy and ethical issues of usingRFID-enabled implantations for clinical purposes. 

Entitled "Radio Frequency ID Devices in Humans," the report is presented by Robert M. Sade, M.D., who chairs the CEJA. It acknowledges that RFID's use in health care "represents another promising development in information technology, but also raises important ethical, legal and social issues." The report adds, "Specifically, the use of RFID labeling in humans for medical purposes may improve patient safety, but also may pose some physical risks, compromise patient privacy, or present other social hazards." 

The AMA's report identifies three specific recommendations: The informed-consent process must include disclosure of medical uncertainties associated with these devices; physicians should strive to protect patients' privacy by storing confidential information only on RFID devices utilizing informational security similar to that required for medical records; and physicians should support research into the safety and efficacy of RFID devices implanted in human beings, and examine the role of doctors regarding the nonmedical uses of the technology. 

The recommendations now serve as ethical guidelines for physicians and caregivers, explains Steven Stack, M.D., a member of the AMA's board of trustees, and are officially part of the AMA's medical ethics code. While not law, the AMA's code of ethics has long served as a standard of conduct defining the essentials of honorable physician behavior. 

"The AMA is the largest professional organization representing the interest of physicians and patients in the U.S.," Stack says, "and the AMA's code of ethics is the most widely accepted guidance for physicians' professional, ethical practices." In fact, he adds, courts and governments often use the AMA's ethics codes as guidelines. 

Central to the AMA's recommendations is that RFID implantable devices still need to be researched. The report indicates such implants may present physical risks to patients, because the devices can migrate under the skin and become difficult to extract. It goes on to say the risks may be minimized "by constructing RFID tags from materials that permit surrounding tissue to encase the device." Furthermore, the document cautions that RFIDtags may electromagnetically interfere with electrosurgical devices (medical tools that use electrical currents for cauterization during surgery) and defibrillators, and that more research needs to be done regarding whether RFID tags might also affect the efficacy of pharmaceuticals.

More here

More here

“In the long run, chip implants could make it less intrusive than some emerging ID systems which rely on physical biometrics (like your fingerprints or unique eye pattern),” says Alex Soojung-Kim Pang, author of the book “Distraction Addiction” and visiting scholar at Stanford's University’s Peace Innovation Lab.
“This should be a matter of individual choice, but fighting crime should be much easier using chips,” adds sci-fi author Larry Niven, who predicted chip implants in the ’70s. Niven said he supports chip implantation for security reasons, provided it is an opt-in measure.
Ramez Naam, who led the early development of Microsoft software projects and is now a popular speaker and author, said he envisions using chip implantation to help monitor the location of people with Alzheimer's disease.
They could be used to track the activities of felons who have been released from prison.
Chips are being used today to manage farm animals. Farmers can track sheep, pigs and horses as they move through a gate, weigh them instantly and make sure they are eating properly.
Device Under Skin Tells Doc You're OK (Or Not)
“Those same chips have found their way into RFID devices to activate the gas pump from a key ring and for anti-theft devices in cars,” said Stu Lipoff, an electrical engineer and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers spokesman.
“There have been people who volunteered to use them for opening the door of an apartment as a personalized ID using your arm. It could be used to track criminals targeted for patrol who might wander into a restricted area.”
Possible uses in the future
Implants are normally useful only at short ranges – as you walk through a portal or close to a transponder. So using chip implants to track people would require an infrastructure of transponders scattered around a city that read their identity in public buildings and street corners, Lipoff said.

More here

A number of employees like, Ann-Catherine Liska, have opted for the traditional pass for now.
'I don't feel that its necessary for opening doors or connecting with machines.' Ms Liska said.
Hannes Sjoblad, one of the tiny RFID (radio-frequency identification) chip developers, said they could be part of all future workplaces.
"We already interact with technology all the time. Today it's a bit messy - we need pin codes and passwords. Wouldn't it be easy to just touch with your hand? That's really intuitive."' Mr Sjoblad said.
He said its launch at the Sime office in Stockholm will provide more research into the technology.
"We want to be able to understand this technology before big corporates and big government come to us and say everyone should get chipped - the tax authority chip, the Google or Facebook chip." Mr Sjoblad said.

More here

More here

"Employee, Elicico De Costa, decided to get one and hasn't looked back since.
'It can contain contact details. I think it can do a lot of other stuff in the future.' Mr De Costa said.
It's expected the chip will eventually enable staff to log on to computers or pay for food in the cafe.
But the new pass is still having teething problems, with some staff reporting their chips don't always work.
A number of employees like, Ann-Catherine Liska, have opted for the traditional pass for now.
'I don't feel that its necessary for opening doors or connecting with machines.' Ms Liska said.
Hannes Sjoblad, one of the tiny RFID (radio-frequency identification) chip developers, said they could be part of all future workplaces.
"We already interact with technology all the time. Today it's a bit messy - we need pin codes and passwords. Wouldn't it be easy to just touch with your hand? That's really intuitive."' Mr Sjoblad said.
He said its launch at the Sime office in Stockholm will provide more research into the technology.
"We want to be able to understand this technology before big corporates and big government come to us and say everyone should get chipped - the tax authority chip, the Google or Facebook chip." Mr Sjoblad said."