I Won’t Get Chipped … and Neither Should You

I will never willingly have a microchip implanted in my body. Does that make me a paranoiac, a Luddite … or prescient?

Paranoiac [par-uh-noi-ak]: A tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others

If you’ve followed the entertaining saga of former White House communications chief Anthony “The Mooch” Scaramucci, you’ll be familiar with the term “paranoiac.” Apparently the Mooch thinks ex-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus is one.

The question is: Am I one, too?

Recently my colleague Paul Mampilly wrote that he’d be perfectly happy to have a microchip implanted in his body if it made his life easier.

I disagree, to put it mildly. Does that make me a paranoiac, a Luddite … or prescient?

Privacy or Convenience?

Three Square Market, a Wisconsin company that makes self-checkout gear for corporate and prison cafeterias, recently started implanting microchips in its employees.

728x170_CanYouIdentifyRock_article
728X170PRL-IOT_Article_3AdsIn1_article
728x170_MidwesternBldg_article

The company claims it’s doing this to make life easier for those employees. They won’t have to use cash or cards to pay for snacks, enter a password in their computer, or use a key or card to unlock doors.

All they must do is consent to a rice-sized radio-frequency ID (RFID) microchip in their hand.

(A skeptic might argue that this exercise is really a form of viral marketing — by creating a media stir, it attracts attention and business. It might just work … especially in the prison warden market, where such technologies are the stuff of dreams. But I digress.)

This has led to a big outcry. Paul Mampilly feels this is wrong: He says initial resistance to innovative technology is always misguided:

… I’m skeptical of media stories that question new technology that can make our lives better … especially when it comes to something that’s as frequent as paying for things, like how RFID chips are being used. …  The bottom line for me on this is that there is a revolution brewing in financial technology. And it’s clear that many people are ready to throw off old ways in terms of paying for things in order to have greater convenience, and the freedom of being able to do things without a wallet or a form of payment.

Paul says: “… When you look back at history, the pessimists have been utterly and completely wrong on technological developments.” He cites initial skepticism attending the invention of printing, email and Facebook, which critics thought would make us crazy, stupid and immoral, respectively.

No Such Thing as a Neutral Technology

It’s true that people have worried about the impact of new technologies throughout history. Usually those initial concerns turn out to be unfounded … at least when considered over a long enough time frame.

But technologies do change us … usually in unforeseen ways.

Consider Paul’s examples:

  • The invention of printing enabled mass communication, disrupting Europe’s socio-political order and resulting in the fragmentation of Christendom and the collapse of feudalism.
  • Email may not be worse than marijuana, but it has radically transformed the way we communicate, both qualitatively (“IMHO”) and quantitatively. (“Inbox bankruptcy” is an actual thing.)
  • I happen to agree that Facebook has made us less moral, at least politically. The initial worry was that rapid information flows would eliminate time for introspection. Whether that’s true or not, nobody can deny social media’s role in self-segregating society ideologically, giving rise to ever more extreme political opinions and making democracy increasingly unworkable.

The Science of the Possible

In my writings, I’ve consistently argued that as technologies change, so too do the principles that govern the use of that technology.

For example, the authors of the U.S. Constitution would undoubtedly consider the electronic surveillance practices of the U.S. government to be antithetical to that document. Most modern decision-makers, however, accept them because of their purported benefits for law enforcement, combating terrorism, etc.

Those benefits, of course, only became apparent once the technologies were invented — thus posing a brand-new moral and political question asking for an answer.

Predictably, those in power answered it in a way that meets their own interests, and found ways to justify their choice. That’s always how the emergence of new “benefits” from technological innovation leads to a shift in attitudes toward other things, like privacy and personal choice.

Crucially, however, these attitudinal changes depend on how power is distributed in society. After all, the rest of us have views on these matters too. The question is whether anyone at the top pays attention to us.

Electronic surveillance is attractive to unaccountable bureaucrats and politicians, who like the power it gives them (but quickly change their minds when they are the targets!).

Whether or not a technology like this is deployed for good or ill, however, depends on whether ordinary people like us are powerful enough to influence matters.

Right Idea, Wrong Time

This is precisely why I object to the implantation of microchips.

Any technology is as useful as the uses to which it is put.

If we lived in a society where I could be certain that implantable microchips would not be abused by powerful forces in the public and private sectors, I’d agree with Paul.

But we don’t.

We live in a society where an increasingly unaccountable corporate-government elite gets away with pretty much whatever it can. Good intentions are swamped by self-serving assessments of the “benefits” of innovative ways to erode our liberty.

That’s why I’m not getting a microchip … even if it makes paying for coffee a little less convenient.

I want to know what you think. Would you ever consider getting a microchip implanted in your body? Let me know in the comments section below, or you can send me an email at baumanletter@banyanhill.com.

Kind regards,

Ted Bauman
Editor, The Bauman Letter

Editor’s Note: Ted has spent nearly 25 years helping people gain the financial and personal freedoms they deserve. And after following his guidance, they feel that their assets are protected from taxes, lawsuits and other aggressors … but they’re desperate to find a way to grow their wealth in the stock market without the risk of losing their shirt. That’s why Ted and his team designed a stock trading system that lets you take action with as little risk as possible. For all the details, click here.

  • Rich Langsford

    I’d equate implanting an ID chip of the type used to track pets as being as foolhardy as keeping your financial data on a computer without a password. Fortunately in the future, this will not need to be the case. Any manufacturer worth his salt will realize that such a chip is much too Orwellian to attract many takers. The chips I’d envision as being viable would each be supplied with a matched and highly encrypted transponder, allowing the owner to switch it on or off at will, and also set desired security parameters for each application it is paired with. For the truly paranoid or security conscious individual, the chip could be implanted just above the wrist to allow shielding by a copper or silver bracelet when not in use. I can sure see such a device affording many conveniences and imaginative uses as long as individual privacy and security are built into the package.

  • Ben

    The bed use I could see for this technology is medical records for high risk patients. Imagine having an emergency, going into the emergency room, and the doctor instantly knowing what conditions you have and medications you’re on, even if you can’t answer questions. That could be a lifesaver, literally.

  • Betty Nalls

    No I would die first

  • Neil Abbott

    One is having a Working radio antenna encased in medical glass, which is a semiconductor, implanted along the median nerve. I mean come on how obvious can you get! Can you figure out the capabilities of that device which go far Beyond medical records, payment and password authorization as well as tracking your food ration after the fiat currency system is destroyed by the FED and one must enroll in the “New Deal” by consenting to the chip to receive one’s UBI and food ration allotments.
    So Ted can you guess as to the Easter eggs within this device?

  • mary

    yeah, because having the info in your wallet or with your loved ones just isn’t enough. *eye roll* You’ll believe anything. People who voice these statements are the real problem, TROLLS or otherwise. I vote TROLL.