Implantation of microchips into humans for the purposes of tracking and identification was a class topic which I found myself mulling. Why did the idea make me uncomfortable? Why was my attitude not as gregarious and supportive as my peers? I believe my quandary lies in my ability to clearly see both the positive and negative benefits of this technology.
Applications within the medical community, quickly and efficiently archiving and accessing patient history, are quite impressive (Schmidt & Cohen, 2013). More sophisticated applications to monitor patient biometrics could prevent stroke or heart attack. Perhaps, they can even be used to monitor minute changes in blood chemistry to detect early signs of cancer. “The possibilities of thought-controlled motion…for prosthetic limbs are particularly exciting” (Schmidt & Cohen, 2013, 18). Beyond the medical community, convenience is a key benefit of human micro chipping, eliminating the need to carry social security cards, credit cards and cash. From a safety perspective, I clearly see that missing persons would be nearly eliminated with children and the elder tracked through their under skin devices. I can readily imagine a world in which I can easily move through the airport with just a swipe of my wrist and no need to carry passports, tickets or itineraries. “Centralizing the many moving parts of one’s life into an easy-to-use, almost intuitive system of information management and decision making will give our interactions with technology an effortless feel” (Schmidt & Cohen, 2013, 16).
And yet, I still question whether the benefits outweigh the risks. In the last year, we have seen an incredible amount of cyber security issues with credit card numbers stolen from Target retail stores and personal information, including email addresses and passwords, intercepted by the Heartbleed Bug. Beyond this, we saw one of the largest scandals in the history of the National Security Administration with un-warranted global surveillance of both private citizens and government officials. It is easy to envision a world where a would be thief scans my device as I run into the grocery, cleans out my bank account, runs up my credit cards and steals my social security number before I have reached the milk aisle. Is it unreasonable to think that hackers might maliciously modify criminal records just to wreak havoc on the developed world? How would you prove your innocence when all digital records clearly validate your guilt? Is it unthinkable that corporations might develop algorithms to predict future performance based on your movements throughout the day, including non-working hours?
While I support progress and development of new and improved technologies, I’m a huge proponent of caution. Allow both the human interface and the technology to develop, grow and nurture one another. Why do we need to rush off blindly thinking only of the positive and never of the risks or ramifications? Micro chipping humans can have multiple, positive implications for society including easier identification, better medical records and diagnostics, and increased mobility (Schmidt & Cohen, 2013).
Ironically, some of the benefits of the forecasted technological advances, particularly, for the use of prosthetic limbs, strike very close to home for me. An ultrasound only recently revealed that my soon to be born nephew is without a hand on his left side. Intellectually, I want to preach caution and accountability for risk. Personally, I want to rush into the unknown and provide ease of mobility and increased functionality. I don’t want to see him limited or singled out. Brown and Weiner’s assertion in Future Think: How to Think in a Time of Change that “When you design for the physically challenged, you design for everyone” is very prophetic (2005, page 13). It is not the development of the technology that troubles me but rather the usage.
I, whole heartedly, support technical advances, including micro chipping, which improve our quality of life. However, I believe it is my obligation and responsibility to hold governments, malicious individuals and singularly focused corporations accountable for misuse of this limitless data stream. In reality, it was not micro chipping that impacted my discomfort but rather a distrust of the institutions and people around me. Clearly, this is a bias that I must learn to recognize and overcome, allowing me to provide both support and opposition as warranted.
Christine
References
Brown, A., & Weiner, E. (2005). Looking Through Alien Eyes. In Future Think: How to think in a Time of Change.
Schmidt, J., & Cohen, J. (2013). Our Future Selves. In The new digital age: Reshaping the future of people, nations and business. New York: Vintage Books.
No comments:
Post a Comment