STOCK QUOTES     More market data...

Silicon Valley view
Setting protections on human ID chips

By MIKE LANGBERG
Knight Ridder Newspapers

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

I'm rolling up my sleeve, ready to get injected with the VeriChip. That's the device cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in October as the first implantable electronic identification tag linked to a person's medical profile.

Privacy advocates, of course, are hugely concerned about creepy ways in which VeriChipped people could be tracked by schools, employers or the government.

These concerns are legitimate. But it would be a mistake for our society to walk away from the benefits of VeriChip and similar technology, so I'm going to immodestly propose some laws we need to protect ourselves.

First, however, it's important to understand what VeriChip is and is not.

VeriChip is not new technology. Applied Digital of Delray Beach, Fla., which developed the product, has sold 30 million virtually identical injectable ID chips for pets and livestock in the past 15 years. Thousands of lost dogs and cats without external ID tags have been reunited with their owners because the pets had ID chips that were scanned at animal shelters.

VeriChip is very simple. A glass capsule about the size of a grain of rice, the VeriChip contains only a basic microchip programmed with a 16-digit ID number and an antenna. When the VeriChip is hit with radio waves from a scanner, the chip broadcasts its ID number. There are no batteries in the VeriChip, and it works for a lifetime.

The only way to get meaningful information with the VeriChip, which will initially cost about $150 for the human version, is by linking the ID number to a computer database. That database might give a dog's name and home address at an animal shelter, or show a history of adverse drug reactions in an unconscious human in a hospital emergency room.

Of course, a VeriChip implanted for medical reasons could be used in other ways, such as tracking movement in a building through scanners built into doorways. Applied Digital is interested in expanding to nonmedical uses, including credit-card verification and security. In July, the attorney general of Mexico said he and 160 of his top officials had received VeriChip injections for gaining access to top-secret offices.

As I said, I'm willing to get a VeriChip if the product adds to my personal safety and convenience. But I also want to know up front that implanted ID chips won't send us down a slippery slope to a Big Brother society where our every move is monitored.
 
We need basic protections, similar to what's already in place for other technologies ranging from home-phone lines to financial records. I'd humbly suggest federal laws covering five points:

• Getting an implanted ID chip should always be voluntary, without coercion. No one should ever, ever be forced to get an ID chip. What's more, schools, businesses and government should be banned from offers that pressure people. Prisoners, for example, couldn't be promised time off their sentences, and insurance carriers couldn't offer lower rates.

• There has to be an "off" switch. Implanted chips must have the capability either to be permanently turned off or to be removed. The VeriChip can't be deactivated but can be removed in a minor outpatient procedure. Deactivation or removal should be available on demand, no questions asked, and should be free. The fee for inserting a chip should include a reserve fund to pay for removals.

• Scanners can't be hidden. The scanners that read implanted ID chips can be built into walls, door frames or even highway signs. There needs to be a universal symbol showing the location of ID scanners, and that symbol must be shown wherever a scanner is present.

• Individuals must be in control. Chip recipients need full disclosure and absolute veto power over what information goes into computer databases tied to their ID number, and who has access to that information.

• Law-enforcement agencies would need to convince a judge of their legitimate interest in looking at your ID database in the same way they need court orders today to look at phone or bank records.

I don't claim these protections are the last word on what's needed. But we need to start somewhere, and the time to begin the debate is right now.

Mike Langberg is a technology columnist with the San Jose Mercury News.