Search Blog
Blogroll
  • Alan Fustey
  • Becky Wong
  • Bert Griffin
  • Blair MacDougall
  • Blake Goldring
  • Brett Baughman
  • Camillo Lento
  • Chris Delaney
  • Cynthia Kett
  • Darren Long
  • Desmond Jordan
  • Don Shaughnessy
  • Doug Lamb
  • Ed Olkovich
  • Eva Sachs
  • Evelyn Jacks
  • Gail Bebee
  • Gerald Trites
  • Gordon Brock
  • Guy Conger
  • Guy Ward
  • Heather Phillips
  • Ian Burns
  • Ian R. Whiting
  • Ian Telfer
  • Jack Comeau
  • James Dean
  • James West
  • Jeffrey Lipton Fairmont Gloucester
  • Jim Ruta
  • Jim Yih
  • Joe White
  • Jonathan Chevreau
  • Kenneth Eng
  • Larry Weltman
  • Malvin Spooner
  • Mark Borkowski
  • Marty Gunderson
  • Michael Kavanagh
  • Monty Loree
  • Nick Papapanos
  • Norma Walton
  • Pat Bolland
  • Patrick O’Meara
  • Paul Brent
  • Peter Deeb
  • Peter Lantos
  • Riaz Mamdani
  • Richard Crenian
  • Richard Warke
  • Rick Atkinson
  • Rob Peers
  • Robert Bird
  • Robert Gignac
  • Sam Albanese
  • Stephane Ruah
  • Steve Nyvik
  • Steve Selengut
  • Tammy Johnston
  • Terry Cutler
  • Trade With Kavan
  • Trevor Parry
  • Trindent Consulting
  • Wayne Wile
  • Categories
    April 2014
    M T W T F S S
    « Mar   May »
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    282930  

    Tags

    Would You Accept a Bar Code Implant?

    Mark Borkowski

    In a perfect world, universal implantation of the implantable microchip radio frequency identification device (RFID) is activated by a chip reader.

    It is tamper-proof, practically undetectable and indestructible, and is implanted under the skin. 

    This device as claimed would be used only for legitimate, legal and noble purpose, could make life better for all of us, provide better security and peace of mind for us and our loved ones, and even save lives, and tremendously benefit mankind as a whole. 
    However, this is not a perfect world. 

    Bar codes for human beings?

    But no one wants to be treated like a human bar code by the authorities.
    The most serious threat to liberty could be an all-inclusive database mandated by government–a national identification card with biometric identifiers. Such an ID will increase unsolicited surveillance, will blur the distinction between public and private databases, and will undercut a presumptive right to maintain anonymity. The ID would devolve into a general law enforcement tool having nothing to do with response to terrorism.

    The resulting level of intrusion necessitated by implantation would impinge on our many legal rights. It is plausible that, since the technology has not yet been perfected, we as a society would believe there is no need to address the incipient legal problems until devices are used. Justice Rehnquist adopted this view in a U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning beeper surveillance where the respondent had indicated that if beeper surveillance were constitutional, “twenty-four hour surveillance of any citizen of this country will be possible, without judicial knowledge or supervision. 

    However, because of the very sweeping reductions in personal liberty and privacy that such implantation represents, the legal ramifications need to be explored now. Although the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the U.S. Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, a national identification system via microchip implants could be achieved in two stages. 

    A system using the technology, although introduced as a voluntary procedure, may be difficult to dislodge despite limitations of individual freedoms because its advantages will be extremely attractive. The positive applications may be said to outweigh the detrimental legal consequences at that time. Therefore, it is not too soon to consider the repercussions that mandatory microchip implantation would have, as a pre-emptive measure. Upon introduction as a voluntary system, the microchip implantation will appear to be palatable. 

    The U.S. Fourth Amendment has been invoked with reference to internal intrusions upon individuals to obtain evidence, which could be used against them. Examples include the withdrawal of blood and bodily searches, which require surgical procedures or other means to extract substances from the body. 

    English Common Law and the U.S. Fifth Amendment provides in principle that no citizen shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, an U.S. Supreme Court justice once noted that “[A] person is compelled to be a witness against himself not only when he is compelled to testify, but also when… incriminating evidence is forcibly taken from him by a contrivance of modern science.”

    To avoid a governmental mandate, citizens may advocate for an outright ban. This drastic measure may also be necessary in a system that is initially voluntary, for it may well be the precursor to a mandate. Short of that, the best way of preventing incipient problems is to protect rights before desensitization.

    Although use of such a device at first appears farfetched, examination of the existing technology and the potential utility proves that microchip implantation is both possible and, for some purposes, desirable. Beginning with voluntary introduction, Americans and Canadians may be lulled into accepting them. This article thus sounds a warning bell. The time to prevent grievous intrusion into personal privacy by enacting appropriate legislative safeguards is now, rather than when it is too late.

    By: Mark Borkowski is president of Mercantile Mergers & Acquisitions Corporation. Mark can be reached at www.mercantilemergersacquisitions.com

    The MONEY® Network