Microchip Implants Raise Privacy Concern

[kari21]

I posted this in World News, but it might be better here.....

Microchip Implants Raise Privacy Concern

By TODD LEWAN,AP

Posted: 2007-07-21 12:19:57

CityWatcher.com, a provider of surveillance equipment, attracted little notice itself - until a year ago, when two of its employees had glass-encapsulated microchips with miniature antennas embedded in their forearms.

The "chipping" of two workers with RFIDs - radio frequency identification tags as long as two grains of rice, as thick as a toothpick - was merely a way of restricting access to vaults that held sensitive data and images for police departments, a layer of security beyond key cards and clearance codes, the company said.

"To protect high-end secure data, you use more sophisticated techniques," Sean Darks, chief executive of the Cincinnati-based company, said. He compared chip implants to retina scans or fingerprinting. "There's a reader outside the door; you walk up to the reader, put your arm under it, and it opens the door."

Innocuous? Maybe.

But the news that Americans had, for the first time, been injected with electronic identifiers to perform their jobs fired up a debate over the proliferation of ever-more-precise tracking technologies and their ability to erode privacy in the digital age.

To some, the microchip was a wondrous invention - a high-tech helper that could increase security at nuclear plants and military bases, help authorities identify wandering Alzheimer's patients, allow consumers to buy their groceries, literally, with the wave of a chipped hand.

To others, the notion of tagging people was Orwellian, a departure from centuries of history and tradition in which people had the right to go and do as they pleased, without being tracked, unless they were harming someone else.

Chipping, these critics said, might start with Alzheimer's patients or Army Rangers, but would eventually be suggested for convicts, then parolees, then sex offenders, then illegal aliens - until one day, a majority of Americans, falling into one category or another, would find themselves electronically tagged.

The concept of making all things traceable isn't alien to Americans. Thirty years ago, the first electronic tags were fixed to the ears of cattle, to permit ranchers to track a herd's reproductive and eating habits. In the 1990s, millions of chips were implanted in livestock, fish, dogs, cats, even racehorses.

Microchips are now fixed to car windshields as toll-paying devices, on "contactless" payment cards (Chase's "Blink," or MasterCard's "PayPass"). They're embedded in Michelin tires, library books, passports, work uniforms, luggage, and, unbeknownst to many consumers, on a host of individual items, from Hewlett Packard printers to Sanyo TVs, at Wal-Mart and Best Buy .

But CityWatcher.com employees weren't appliances or pets: They were people made scannable.

"It was scary that a government contractor that specialized in putting surveillance cameras on city streets was the first to incorporate this technology in the workplace," says Liz McIntyre, co-author of "Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID."

Darks, the CityWatcher.com executive, dismissed his critics, noting that he and his employees had volunteered to be chip-injected. Any suggestion that a sinister, Big-Brother-like campaign was afoot, he said, was hogwash.

"You would think that we were going around putting chips in people by force," he told a reporter, "and that's not the case at all."

Yet, within days of the company's announcement, civil libertarians and Christian conservatives joined to excoriate the microchip's implantation in people.

RFID, they warned, would soon enable the government to "frisk" citizens electronically - an invisible, undetectable search performed by readers posted at "hotspots" along roadsides and in pedestrian areas. It might even be used to squeal on employees while they worked; time spent at the water cooler, in the bathroom, in a designated smoking area could one day be broadcast, recorded and compiled in off-limits, company databases.

"Ultimately," says Katherine Albrecht, a privacy advocate who specializes in consumer education and RFID technology, "the fear is that the government or your employer might someday say, 'Take a chip or starve."'

Some Christian critics saw the implants as the fulfillment of a biblical prophecy that describes an age of evil in which humans are forced to take the "Mark of the Beast" on their bodies, to buy or sell anything.

Gary Wohlscheid, president of These Last Days Ministries, a Roman Catholic group in Lowell, Mich., put together a Web site that linked the implantable microchips to the apocalyptic prophecy in the book of Revelation.

"The Bible tells us that God's wrath will come to those who take the Mark of the Beast," he says. Those who refuse to accept the Satanic chip "will be saved," Wohlscheid offers in a comforting tone.

In post-9/11 America, electronic surveillance comes in myriad forms: in a gas station's video camera; in a cell phone tucked inside a teen's back pocket; in a radio tag attached to a supermarket shopping cart; in a Porsche automobile equipped with a LoJack anti-theft device.

"We're really on the verge of creating a surveillance society in America, where every movement, every action - some would even claim, our very thoughts - will be tracked, monitored, recorded and correlated," says Barry Steinhardt, director of the Technology and Liberty Program at the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington, D.C.

RFID, in Steinhardt's opinion, "could play a pivotal role in creating that surveillance society."

In design, the tag is simple: A medical-grade glass capsule holds a silicon computer chip, a copper antenna and a "capacitor" that transmits data stored on the chip when prompted by an electromagnetic reader.

Implantations are quick, relatively simple procedures. After a local anesthetic is administered, a large-gauge hypodermic needle injects the chip under the skin on the back of the arm, midway between the elbow and the shoulder.

"It feels just like getting a vaccine - a bit of pressure, no specific pain," says John Halamka, an emergency physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

He got chipped two years ago, "so that if I was ever in an accident, and arrived unconscious or incoherent at an emergency ward, doctors could identify me and access my medical history quickly." (A chipped person's medical profile can be continuously updated, since the information is stored on a database accessed via the Internet.)

Halamka thinks of his microchip as another technology with practical value, like his BlackBerry. But it's also clear, he says, that there are consequences to having an implanted identifier.

"My friends have commented to me that I'm 'marked' for life, that I've lost my anonymity. And to be honest, I think they're right."

Indeed, as microchip proponents and detractors readily agree, Americans' mistrust of microchips and technologies like RFID runs deep. Many wonder:

Do the current chips have global positioning transceivers that would allow the government to pinpoint a person's exact location, 24-7? (No; the technology doesn't yet exist.)

But could a tech-savvy stalker rig scanners to video cameras and film somebody each time they entered or left the house? (Quite easily, though not cheaply. Currently, readers cost $300 and up.)

How about thieves? Could they make their own readers, aim them at unsuspecting individuals, and surreptitiously pluck people's IDs out of their arms? (Yes. There's even a name for it - "spoofing.")

What's the average lifespan of a microchip? (About 10-15 years.) What if you get tired of it before then - can it be easily, painlessly removed? (Short answer: No.)

Presently, Steinhardt and other privacy advocates view the tagging of identity documents - passports, drivers licenses and the like - as a more pressing threat to Americans' privacy than the chipping of people. Equipping hospitals, doctors' offices, police stations and government agencies with readers will be costly, training staff will take time, and, he says, "people are going to be too squeamish about having an RFID chip inserted into their arms, or wherever."

But that wasn't the case in March 2004, when the Baja Beach Club in Barcelona, Spain - a nightclub catering to the body-aware, under-25 crowd - began holding "Implant Nights."

In a white lab coat, with hypodermic in latex-gloved hand, a company chipper wandered through the throng of the clubbers and clubbettes, anesthetizing the arms of consenting party goers, then injecting them with microchips.

The payoff?

Injectees would thereafter be able to breeze past bouncers and entrance lines, magically open doors to VIP lounges, and pay for drinks without cash or credit cards. The ID number on the VIP chip was linked to the user's financial accounts and stored in the club's computers.

After being chipped himself, club owner Conrad K. Chase declared that chip implants were hardly a big deal to his patrons, since "almost everybody has piercings, tattoos or silicone."

VIP chipping soon spread to the Baja Beach Club in Rotterdam, Holland, the Bar Soba in Edinburgh, Scotland, and the Amika nightclub in Miami Beach, Fla.

That same year, Mexico's attorney general, Rafael Macedo, made an announcement that thrilled chip proponents and chilled privacy advocates: He and 18 members of his staff had been microchipped as a way to limit access to a sensitive records room, whose door unlocked when a "portal reader" scanned the chips.

But did this make Mexican security airtight?

Hardly, says Jonathan Westhues, an independent security researcher in Cambridge, Mass. He concocted an "emulator," a hand-held device that cloned the implantable microchip electronically. With a team of computer-security experts, he demonstrated - on television - how easy it was to snag data off a chip.

Explains Adam Stubblefield, a Johns Hopkins researcher who joined the team: "You pass within a foot of a chipped person, copy the chip's code, then with a push of the button, replay the same ID number to any reader. You essentially assume the person's identity."

The company that makes implantable microchips for humans, VeriChip Corp., of Delray Beach, Fla., concedes the point - even as it markets its radio tag and its portal scanner as imperatives for high-security buildings, such as nuclear power plants.

"To grab information from radio frequency products with a scanning device is not hard to do," Scott Silverman, the company's chief executive, says. However, "the chip itself only contains a unique, 16-digit identification number. The relevant information is stored on a database."

Even so, he insists, it's harder to clone a VeriChip than it would be to steal someone's key card and use it to enter secure areas.

VeriChip Corp., whose parent company has been selling radio tags for animals for more than a decade, has sold 7,000 microchips worldwide, of which about 2,000 have been implanted in humans. More than one-tenth of those have been in the U.S., generating "nominal revenues," the company acknowledged in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing in February.

Although in five years VeriChip Corp. has yet to turn a profit, it has been investing heavily - up to $2 million a quarter - to create new markets.

The company's present push: tagging of "high-risk" patients - diabetics and people with heart conditions or Alzheimer's disease.

In an emergency, hospital staff could wave a reader over a patient's arm, get an ID number, and then, via the Internet, enter a company database and pull up the person's identity and medical history.

To doctors, a "starter kit" - complete with 10 hypodermic syringes, 10 VeriChips and a reader - costs $1,400. To patients, a microchip implant means a $200, out-of-pocket expense to their physician. Presently, chip implants aren't covered by insurance companies, Medicare or Medicaid.

For almost two years, the company has been offering hospitals free scanners, but acceptance has been limited. According to the company's most recent SEC quarterly filing, 515 hospitals have pledged to take part in the VeriMed network, yet only 100 have actually been equipped and trained to use the system.

Some wonder why they should abandon noninvasive tags such as MedicAlert, a low-tech bracelet that warns paramedics if patients have serious allergies or a chronic medical condition.

"Having these things under your skin instead of in your back pocket - it's just not clear to me why it's worth the inconvenience," says Westhues.

Silverman responds that an implanted chip is "guaranteed to be with you. It's not a medical arm bracelet that you can take off if you don't like the way it looks.

"

In fact, microchips can be removed from the body - but it's not like removing a splinter.

The capsules can migrate around the body or bury themselves deep in the arm. When that happens, a sensor X-ray and monitors are needed to locate the chip, and a plastic surgeon must cut away scar tissue that forms around the chip.

The relative permanence is a big reason why Marc Rotenberg, of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, is suspicious about the motives of the company, which charges an annual fee to keep clients' records.

The company charges $20 a year for customers to keep a "one-pager" on its database - a record of blood type, allergies, medications, driver's license data and living-will directives. For $80 a year, it will keep an individual's full medical history.

In recent times, there have been rumors on Wall Street, and elsewhere, of the potential uses for RFID in humans: the chipping of U.S. soldiers, of inmates, or of migrant workers, to name a few.

To date, none of this has happened.

But a large-scale chipping plan that was proposed illustrates the stakes, pro and con.

In mid-May, a protest outside the Alzheimer's Community Care Center in West Palm Beach, Fla., drew attention to a two-year study in which 200 Alzheimer's patients, along with their caregivers, were to receive chip implants. Parents, children and elderly people decried the plan, with signs and placards.

"Chipping People Is Wrong" and "People Are Not Pets," the signs read. And: "Stop VeriChip."

Ironically, the media attention sent VeriChip's stock soaring 27 percent in one day.

"VeriChip offers technology that is absolutely bursting with potential," wrote blogger Gary E. Sattler, of the AOL site Bloggingstocks, even as he recognized privacy concerns.

Albrecht, the RFID critic who organized the demonstration, raises similar concerns on her AntiChips.com Web site.

"Is it appropriate to use the most vulnerable members of society for invasive medical research? Should the company be allowed to implant microchips into people whose mental impairments mean they cannot give fully informed consent?"

Mary Barnes, the care center's chief executive, counters that both the patients and their legal guardians must consent to the implants before receiving them. And the chips, she says, could be invaluable in identifying lost patients - for instance, if a hurricane strikes Florida.

That, of course, assumes that the Internet would be accessible in a killer storm. VeriChip Corp. acknowledged in an SEC filing that its "database may not function properly" in such circumstances.

As the polemic heats up, legislators are increasingly being drawn into the fray. Two states, Wisconsin and North Dakota, recently passed laws prohibiting the forced implantation of microchips in humans. Others - Ohio, Oklahoma, Colorado and Florida - are studying similar legislation.

In May, Oklahoma legislators were debating a bill that would have authorized microchip implants in people imprisoned for violent crimes. Many felt it would be a good way to monitor felons once released from prison.

But other lawmakers raised concerns. Rep. John Wright worried, "Apparently, we're going to permanently put the mark on these people."

Rep. Ed Cannaday found the forced microchipping of inmates "invasive ... We are going down that slippery slope."

In the end, lawmakers sent the bill back to committee for more work.

What was scary to me was the line: "...allow consumers to buy their groceries, literally, with the wave of a chipped hand."

Everything is in place for the rise of the Antichrist.

[Eliyahuw]

it isn't going to be used for the mark. For one thing it can be removed, secondly it can be counterfeited. lets say you don't want to accept the mark, you can clone another persons chip and use it and you won't be accepting the mark.

the mark will be something that cannot be removed, copied, and is totally unique to each and every person, something like lets say DNA?? they already have a dna reader in development

[kari21]

A DNA reader? That floors me! All I know is I'm glad I won't be around to see it! Thank-you, Jesus!!!

[Eliyahuw]

A DNA reader? That floors me! All I know is I'm glad I won't be around to see it! Thank-you, Jesus!!!

yeah but its really in the very beginning stages. It also requires that everyone submit to a dna database too. otherwise they wouldn't be able to link up your dna with anything

[sweetycakes]

DNA readers are quite common, and not so far off as people would imagine as a mass-marketed device.

Maybe the Mark of the Beast will be a combination of a DNA reader and external mark.

They keep us guessing.

Either way, I think the time is not far off.

Submitting to a DNA database is probably something that we will not be able to avoid in the future. Even petty crimes these days require a DNA swab. And at every crime scene, it is easy for the authorities to get a DNA profile of the offender.

Don'tcha watch CSI??

[Massorite]

All of you all should forget the micro chip and start focusing the the new RFID tattoo. I thought for some time that the micro chip was it. But now a company out of St Louise has developed an ink that will hold info and can be read from up to 4 feet away. The interesting thing is that when the implantable micro chip first came out it to could only be read from 4 or 5 feet away. But now they can be read vie satellite.

As The time Draws Near

[LadyRaven]

it doesn't have the be the mark of the beast for it to be a horrifying thought. The Nazi Germany and the ovens were not the tribulation but it still would have bit to have lived during that time. The oppression of communist Russia was not the last days but it still sucked. Same with Pol Pot. Christians need to think that maybe, just maybe, it's worth affecting the world rather than worrying about the supposed last day and the mark of the beast. Honestly I've seen so many act as if ... if it's not the mark it's not worth worrying about. Christ could delay the second coming for another two thousand years and things might not work out the way all you pretribbers think they will, and in the mean time things could get really ugly around here. I'd rather worry about how this will affect the citisens of the nation I live in than worry if this just might be the foundation for the antichrist.

[chin]

don't worry,you'll be gone in the rapture!

[Eliyahuw]

DNA readers are quite common, and not so far off as people would imagine as a mass-marketed device.

yeah but their quite large you know. not exactly condusive to transportability.

Submitting to a DNA database is probably something that we will not be able to avoid in the future. Even petty crimes these days require a DNA swab. And at every crime scene, it is easy for the authorities to get a DNA profile of the offender.

Don'tcha watch CSI??

not only that when you have blood tests, ect ect ect at the docotrs or hospital you need to make them sign a statement that they will destroy all samples once tests are complete and they will not enter your dna map into any database for any reason.

They right now are required to disclose if they are participating in the DNA database and you have the right to refuse to allow them to do that.

what i do is require them to give me all the cards they use to do tests with and let me watch them destroy them so that no dna test can be preformed on them.

Easiset way to avoid it is to not allow blood tests.

[buckthesystem]

DNA profiles being the MOB, I must confess I hadn't thought of that. I was too tied up in thinking that the - what seems to be - worldwide trend towards compulsory ID schemes had a better "shot at it".

Eliyahuw are you in the UK? I don't know a lot about DNA databases in other places (except that here lack of money and general government incompetence so far makes a mockery of any plans that our government might have for a national dna database) but my friend whom I have known, and been writing to for ages, and now lives in the UK has been emailing me telling me the horrible facts with regard to DNA collection in the UK and has backed his information up with articles on the subject. It seems that they used to have a law saying that the DNA of only "criminals looking at seven years in jail or more" (or something like that) had to submit samples of DNA - apparently they take a swab from the inside of the cheek of the mouth - but now the law has been changed by the present government to mean that anyone arrested for any reason whatsoever - even "public disorder" or "drunkenness" or something like that - has they DNA sample automatically taken and stored on the national police DNA database. Even if the person is subsequently proven to be innocent of the accused crime, i.e. acquitted, or the "case is dropped and never brought to trial" or the person is later found to be a victim of mistaken identity, the DNA sample is still kept on the national database indefinitely and is not destroyed as it would have been in the past under those circumstances.

The DNA from victims of crime in UK (including millions of children), that was taken "for elimination purposes" has also ended up on the database. Apparently the figures of the percentage of people in the UK on the DNA database are about 30% and at this rate in about 15 years it is estimated to near 100%, but of course by then it is anticipated that a scheme of taking new born babies' DNA within minutes of birth, will be implemented.

Talking of that, here we have (as they also do in America and I presume most other countries) a scheme whereby blood samples are automatically taken from babies shortly after birth allegedly for "testing for genetic diseases" and the blood samples are "kept indefinitely". I believe that DNA is not taken from them yet, but they are just waiting for legislation to be passed enabling just that to be done (afterall why else would they be "kept indefinitely?). This has happened since 1969 here, and I tried to find out when this first started in the UK, but I couldn't come up with an exact date. The earliest document I found on the subject was dated November 1958. So potentially the government already has access to the DNA of everybody born since 1958 (which is by now probably about 70% of the population) and they probably don't worry about anyone born before that as they are too old to be of concern.

Another UK think is that I've been reading about the "UK ID card/database" scheme due to be implemented in 2009, and it seems that DNA profiling "has not been ruled out" as a part of it. This adds more ammunition to my "ID card/database as the MOB" theory. Maybe your DNA profile would be able to be read from your "digi-tattoo", which could replace the actual card and just hold a number that could be read and "unlock" your file on the database.

But I can see other dangers from mandatory DNA profiling as well, like: Aside from all the current reasons for not collecting DNA from everyone, who knows what future advances in technology have in store for us? Imagine if you were prevented from having children by the state because your genetic makeup was "flawed" in some unacceptable way to the government of the day.

Or maybe your DNA indicates that you are prone to some sort of "behavioral" issues that warrant you being subjected to 24/7 monitoring (for your own safety, of course). It would be like your own personal lie detector that you wouldn't even have to open your mouth to incriminate yourself.

I had the links to a lot of articles in my email file, but probably the best one is this one: (I'll print out part of the article in case you can't get it). It is a pretty old article, but still very relevant.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/13/ge...h_dna_database/

In addition to "sleepwalking towards a surveillance society" via the ID scheme, the UK is snoozing nearer to a Big Brother state, with the aid of the National DNA database, according to a new report by GeneWatch UK. The Home Office has ruled out adding DNA data to the biometrics to be held on the entire population via the ID scheme, but the data which is being collected for the Police National Database already makes it one of the most substantial DNA databases in the world, it's growing fast, and it's possibly significant that the Home Office has stressed that it can't bind future administrations to keeping DNA out of the National Identity Register.

ID scheme-related research has indicated that the population, while knowing very little about it, supports the idea of everyone's DNA being collected. The police database, however, can grow substantially for quite some time without being compulsory, both because DNA data is a useful crime-fighting tool (hence public support), and because of the growing opportunities for DNA sampling that have been created through a series of legislative changes. Genewatch accepts the usefulness of and need for a database, but argues that it needs to be operated within limits and with adequate safeguards and supervision. 'What have you got to hide?', as they say. Well, one of the things about DNA is you don't necessarily know that. Yet.

There are currently 2 million records in the police database, and this is expected to expand to 5 million following the most recent changes in the law. DNA can be taken from those arrested, and retained permanently even if they're not charged or found guilty, and the collection of scene of crime samples is also a valuable mining area. In the case of arrests, you could see situations where large numbers of demonstrators are arrested then released without charge (this happens fairly often), but have their DNA added to the database anyway. The state of play with scene of crime samples is that they are collected with the consent of the subject, who is given a choice of having the data used for the particular investigation and destroyed afterwards, or having it permanently added to the database. Those involved are generally pleased to cooperate, but GeneWatch warns that they don't understand the full implications of irrevocably committing the sample to the national database.

And there are also examples of pressure, amounting to blackmail, on people to 'volunteer.' During a rape investigation in south London, for example, a Met detective wrote in a letter sent out to the local population: "Consider that the suspect is likely to refuse to provide a voluntary sample; catching him will be far easier if he is the only one." Which is of course true, but one might feel just a little pressured. If one didn't, one might then take "I will be reviewing the circumstances around your refusal and will notify you of my decision" as being somewhat more menacing.

Even without that last bit of menace, area population samples accompanying high-profile investigations will add large number of entries, many of them permanent, to the database.

Errors and false DNA matches have led to miscarriages of justice, and these can create major difficulties for those wrongfully convicted because, like fingerprint evidence, DNA is widely regarded as absolutely conclusive, meaning that those without strong alibi evidence will tend to be presumed guilty. At the moment the DNA database itself can be viewed largely (but not entirely) as a growing suspect list that is mainly used to check samples from new and unsolved crime, but the existing data can be (and has been) used for broader purposes, and the UK practice of retaining the sample as well as the data allows it to be used for further testing for other purposes as the science develops.

We're seeing glimpses of what is possible with familial testing, which establishes links to family members where the suspect's DNA might not be on the database, and although the first instance of this was viewed as a coup, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,2763,1195744,00.html) if used widely the procedure would find relatives you didn't know about, and reveal that people weren't related to the people they thought they were. So what have you got to hide? You don't know, and maybe you don't want to know.

Another 'breakthrough' last year involved DNA profiling which was claimed to establish a suspect's origins, based on his DNA, as being from the Caribbean. Police even attempted to drill this down as far as a particular island, although the Florida company which carried out the analysis said that while DNA might be used indicate broad ethnic ancestry, it wasn't possible to say that an individual came from any particular country. This particular instance, however, serves to illustrate what police think DNA can or will be able to do, and the police's view of the database as a resource that can be mined in growing and novel ways.

In the near future mobile scanners, which can generate results in 15 minutes, will come into use, prediction of ethnicity may become feasible, as could predicting health and general appearance. Various studies have claimed to have found genetic links to traits such as homosexuality, aggression, depression or addictive personality, and while GeneWatch notes that none of these studies has stood the test of time, the quest for the criminal gene holds obvious attractions for the forces of law and order. With predictive profiling, says GeneWatch, "a major concern is that the police could misinterpret such DNA evidence as a certainty, whereas the tests can really indicate only a probability."

And although the National Identity Register will not, at least initially, hold DNA records, there are other current and planned DNA databases, and these can be matched across databases by any organisation with the clearance to access them. There has, for example, been discussion of the possibility of profiling DNA at birth and storing this on the individual's NHS electronic health record. This would ultimately produce a complete national database, and given the current government's record on 'balancing' privacy against security, it is by no means inconceivable that the police would be allowed to access such a resource. We can be even less sure about future governments.

GeneWatch recommends the creation of an independent body to govern the use of the database, the destruction of DNA samples after the completion of investigations, an end to the practice of allowing genetic research using the database (the Forensic Science Service, which until the recent addition of private contractors, carried out all the testing is now itself being privatised), and independent research into the effectiveness of database in tackling crime, and the implications of new technologies. It opposes the expansion of the database to include the whole population, warns of the dangers of permanent storage, and calls for a public debate. Well worth reading in full, here. (http://www.genewatch.org/HumanGen/Publications/Reports/NationalDNADatabase.pdf)