Wisconsin Company To (offer) Implant Microchips In Employees.

Fishbait · 24 Jul 2017 at 13:38

A Wisconsin company is about to become the first in the U.S. to offer microchip implants to its employees.

I guess technology will head down this road, would you let someone implant a chip (not the potato kind

) into you. Not sure I would.

Turns out it's not even the first firm to do this.

Pixel · 24 Jul 2017 at 14:52

Anyone who gets one of these is accepting a brand of ownership, like cattle.

FoxEye · 24 Jul 2017 at 14:54

Fishbait said:
Turns out it's not even the first firm to do this.

Yeah it was even covered by BBC's "Click" programme, which means it's at least 20 years old

Schnippzle · 24 Jul 2017 at 14:56

Yes, I'd do it but only if my terms & agreements docs and salary details were stored on there as well

dowie · 24 Jul 2017 at 14:57

I'd be concerned about safety and removal of them... I mean how many decades do you expect to live for? They've not been tested over that time period.

Also would be better to have a more universal one than something linked to a particular company - it might be useful to have one that will unlock the door to your house, let you purchase your lunch, drinks in a bar, use the tube/train/bus etc... that is more the sort of thing I'd consider.

At the moment you can fit one yourself and have it unlock your house front door... but for a company like this you'd need a second one fitted by them if volunteering for this and then what happens when you change employers and/or some payment solution comes out in the form of an implantable chip etc..

adolf hamster · 24 Jul 2017 at 15:07

dowie said:
I'd be concerned about safety and removal of them... I mean how many decades do you expect to live for? They've not been tested over that time period.

problem is that someone's going to need to be the first to "test" something like that over the time period

given things like pacemakers, replacement valves, stints etc are common enough practice in medicine i'd say we're good enough at making something to survive the conditions of the human body for a long time.

Also would be better to have a more universal one than something linked to a particular company - it might be useful to have one that will unlock the door to your house, let you purchase your lunch, drinks in a bar, use the tube/train/bus etc... that is more the sort of thing I'd consider.

At the moment you can fit one yourself and have it unlock your house front door... but for a company like this you'd need a second one fitted by them if volunteering for this and then what happens when you change employers and/or some payment solution comes out in the form of an implantable chip etc..

it would be handy to have something more universal, but it doesn't need an implant, it'd be handy to roll your passport, drivers licence, national insurance, eu health, bank and credit cards all into one single item.

of course it'd need to be an option rather than a necessity, forcing it on people isn't ideal.

dowie · 24 Jul 2017 at 15:10

adolf hamster said:
problem is that someone's going to need to be the first to "test" something like that over the time period

given things like pacemakers, replacement valves, stints etc are common enough practice in medicine i'd say we're good enough at making something to survive the conditions of the human body for a long time.

But is this made by the same people that make those? Don't pace makers get replaced? This thing could potentially be in there for several decades on the other hand.

Fishbait · 24 Jul 2017 at 15:18

Not sure about the pace maker itself, but fairly sure the battery needs replacing. Quick look online states every ten years.

One odd part about the implant, was that the reporter said any time you wanted to, you could "just pop it out".
I can't imagine it's that easy. Sure, if it was just a splinter, but that things surely goes deeper?
So if it's that easy, what's to stop it from getting knocked out during something as simple as sticking your hand in your pocket?

adolf hamster · 24 Jul 2017 at 15:18

dowie said:
But is this made by the same people that make those? Don't pace makers get replaced? This thing could potentially be in there for several decades on the other hand.

a pacemaker needs power, which is batteries, hence the need to replace them, it's not due to the failure of the mechanism itself.

these chips if they're just rfid markers won't need power.

dowie · 24 Jul 2017 at 15:20

adolf hamster said:
a pacemaker needs power, which is batteries, hence the need to replace them, it's not due to the failure of the mechanism itself.

these chips if they're just rfid markers won't need power.

I know a pace maker needs power but that is besides the point, the point was that pace makers aren't left in for decades at a time

adolf hamster · 24 Jul 2017 at 15:22

dowie said:
I know a pace maker needs power but that is besides the point, the point was that pace makers aren't left in for decades at a time

hip replacements, replacement valves?

those are left in for a long time.

these aren't too dissimilar to implants for contraceptives, albeit yes contraceptive implants are designed to dissolve completely and dont require removal.

but they'll just be in flesh, in a location where it'll be easy enough to extract. the mechanics of making a container to survive being in a human body are by all means possible albeit as i originally said, someone needs to be the first to spend their entire life with one.

G-MAN2004 · 24 Jul 2017 at 15:23

A few years back I would have thought this was pretty cool, but not in a million years would I ever opt for that now. No chance.

FoxEye · 24 Jul 2017 at 15:28

Obligatory...

adolf hamster · 24 Jul 2017 at 15:32

G-MAN2004 said:
A few years back I would have thought this was pretty cool, but not in a million years would I ever opt for that now. No chance.

this is why it should always be a choice, i'm not going to debate the reasons why you dont want it, because i know full well they're valid.

personally i'd consider it, if it was offering me a considerable level of convenience, but i wouldn't want it forced on me

ozaudio · 24 Jul 2017 at 15:35

The Belko Experiment

platypus · 24 Jul 2017 at 16:00

adolf hamster said:
given things like pacemakers, replacement valves, stints etc are common enough practice in medicine i'd say we're good enough at making something to survive the conditions of the human body for a long time.

They may be common, but most are short term. And the materials used for replacement joints are now being shown to be problematic, when we're starting to see real datasets on such things, see wear particles.

adolf hamster · 24 Jul 2017 at 16:05

platypus said:
They may be common, but most are short term. And the materials used for replacement joints are now being shown to be problematic, when we're starting to see real datasets on such things, see wear particles.

whilst having debris from wearing of joints is a valid issue, it doesn't apply in this case, given these implants aren't a mechanical joint under considerable stress.

for a static implant your main issue is going to be corrosion from all the various salts etc within the body, and this sort of corrosion can be built against.

dowie · 24 Jul 2017 at 16:19

adolf hamster said:
hip replacements, replacement valves?

those are left in for a long time.

they don't contain electronics, also how do you know that these chip implants conform to similar standards?

Point, again, is simply that they've not been tested over a long time period

adolf hamster · 24 Jul 2017 at 16:25

dowie said:
they don't contain electronics, also how do you know that these chip implants conform to similar standards?

Point, again, is simply that they've not been tested over a long time period

no, but they can survive for long enough periods inside the human body without damaging the body.

the electronics aren't tested.

my point is, to complete your premise of "not tested over a long time period" requires somebody to be the person to have such an implant for a long time period to test it.

i do agree that until it's a tested, tried and proven technology it should not be mandatory (and even then on principle it shouldn't be mandatory) but realistically how bad do you think it could be?

my other citation is going to be a little older, but there's plenty of examples of people who have lived their whole lives with bits of shrapnel inside them from various wars etc. not ideal but didn't kill them.

dowie · 24 Jul 2017 at 16:28

these are rather spurious comparisons a bit of shrapnel being ok because it doesn't kill you and a comparison to another foreign body being implanted in the form of a hip replacement that will generally be in an old person and doesn't actually contain any electronics

yes observing the effects of this technology might well require people to have one in them for a long period of time, so what? I don't fancy being a guinea pig.