However, there was one lecture that did resonate with me, so much so that I can remember things from it twenty three years later. It was prophetic in nature and at its heart lay the issues of privacy and social control through the collection of data and the monitoring of the populace. Bearing in mind the internet was in its infancy, email was confined to university servers (for us students at least) and mobile phones were calls and texts only, the claims being made in the lecture seemed rather fanciful to my nineteen year old mind.
The Lecturer (whose name escapes me despite my best efforts to track him down) claimed that one day we would be making all our payments by scanner, money would become obsolete, all our data would be stored on phones, the internet would grow exponentially and that we would be monitored morning, noon and night by the data held in our phones, by CCTV, and by transactions made online. He also forecast that people would be micro chipped, allowing us to live out our lives by placing data and credits onto our ‘chips’. This, he stated, was the end game, a final nail in the coffin of individual privacy. He was convinced it was being eroded by people wanting to learn our behaviours so as to control our thoughts and desires. It coincided with me reading Orwell’s 1984 and was delivered with real gusto so it lingered in my consciousness for quite a while.
At the end of the lecture he asked for a show of hands when asking the question – would you be chipped?
Given the nature of his lecture and a more wary attitude towards the rapid technological changes of that time it was not surprising that the vast majority of the class wanted to remain unchipped. I remember someone asking him why would this change and his response was one word – fear. The key was to make people think they needed it for security reasons he argued, to keep their children safe, to catch criminals, to improve our economy.
Fast forward twenty three years and I find myself speaking to a digital sociologist at a wedding as you do. I mentioned my still missing cat and bemoaned the limitations of the microchip he had implanted into him as a kitten. It had no GPS tracking capability so finding him through the chip depended upon him being handed in and then scanned for a chip. My details, stored on the chip would be used to reunite us.
My new friend told me she worked with an app that tracked students in order to help them reach their academic potential. Students could opt in to obtain all the data collected on their routines and habits; from how much time they were spending at the library to the types of website they were accessing. She assured me that the data was protected and not being sold off or used inappropriately.
I mentioned the lecture and how it had resonated with me. She told me she would have her child (a very cute and energetic two year old) chipped so long as the chip could be deactivated at some point in the future. For now, knowing where her daughter was would give her peace of mind. She would not be averse to being chipped herself, it was not a big deal to her. She did not mind people knowing where she was though she was dead against anything that could invade her thoughts.
Politicians could never force people to be chipped and with phones becoming something of a centralised data source the political momentum for identity chip implants has receded. But I wonder if a generation of tech savvy young people will view the process of being micro chipped as a violation of their privacy not to mention their bodies? When the question of chipping had been put to us in the mid 90s the response was a universal ‘no way’ though I sense now the response might not be so vociferous.
A Wisconsin company called Three Square Market had 40 of its employees micro chipped in 2017. They argued it would save time logging on and allow payments to be made from contactless cards through the rice sized chip implanted into the hand. It caused a predictable uproar with critics wondering is it really voluntary if the company is asking you to be chipped? A Pandora’s box of privacy issues was opened and legitimate ethical concerns were acknowledged by all parties. But defenders of chipping argue there is so much useful data to be gleaned that to hold back is to miss out on improving businesses and the people who work in them. They also point out phones have microchips in them and we carry those about with us every day. So is human chipping merely a natural extension?
There are two major concerns for me. Whilst technology has opened up the the world in terms of learning and accessibility it has simultaneously narrowed it for many people who live much of their lives through social media and other channels of digital distraction and gaming. I worry that an added layer of surveillance and monitoring feed into a claustrophobic existence which may have serious implications for mental health. Secondly, there is a question of regulation. What data would be stored on the chip? Who would ensure that additional data would not be unlawfully collected and used against people? Effective regulators were thin on the ground during the financial crisis and where consumer interests clash with corporate imperatives, the regulatory bodies often find themselves unable or unwilling to side with the consumer. But furthermore, I feel the same as I did all those years ago. If I don’t want people to know where I am and what I choose to do with my time, then I am entitled to my privacy.
In any case, compulsory chipping of people remains unrealistic for the forseeable future. I think because at some level people feel that placing alien objects in our bodies is not right unless it is essential to our health. Whilst a climate of fear, has become a staple phrase of news commentators over the last few years, many of us still feel that our right to privacy should not be sacrificed Perhaps chipping, as we’ve said, is rendered moot by smart phones though I’d be surprised if the issue completely dead in the water. We’ll keep it under surveillance.
