Can someone explain why people prefer implants over rings? Functionality wise it's same: read on RFID tag, maybe with some light computation.
People wear rings all the time, application is painless, easy to change once compromised or if there is a new model, and provides same features. Chips would have advantage if they would provide better IO, but currently they don't.
Not wanting something extra to remember to put on in the morning.
If you're not used to wearing one, it might be uncomfortable.
For example I love the functionality my smart watch gives me, like not having to dig for my phone from my pocket every time something happens, for timers, and most obviously for time keeping, but I hate how it feels and looks and I've had terrible experience with cheaper straps/bands breaking after few months of use. It's just because I'm not a watch person, but until we can somehow embed screens in our skin, have something like Google glass embedded into our eyes, or have the data somehow streamed to our brains I'm stuck with wearing one.
Meh. I got an rfid implant in 2010 ish, but took it out after a few years because there were so few benefits. If there was a universal standard maybe, or if the range was > 10 cm, or if it had more than a few bytes of memory. I think most people who got a chip implant over the last 10 years came to the same conclusion. The only applications that show up in the press every now and then are like this - for payments. But never something that is widely available.
It's great to get yourself labeled a freak though. I got mine done in a a piercing shop, and when I walked in, the place was full with people with dozens of facial piercings, stretched earlobes and full arm and neck tattoos. But as soon as I mentioned the chip implant and showed that I was serious by showing the actual one I wanted put in, they all started murmuring and looking at me like I was send back in time from the year 2210. The owner wasn't sure how to feel when I pulled out a laptop and rfid reader and grinned like an idiot when I successfully logged on to the machine by waving my hand over the reader.
Also, I think you can get chips with kilobytes of memory easily. Sure, not enough to store too much data on there, but fairly reasonable for a bunch of stuff.
Well it was still a foreign thing floating around in my hand. Back then I still trained bjj/mma and I was always slightly nervous it would break or pinch a muscle or something. Since it was of no use anyway, I figured it'd be better to take it out.
Re: memory, what would be a useful use case for having a few kb of data under your skin? It's not enough to store e.g. crucial documents, plus you need a custom reader.
When I got it, I thought 'uses will pop up when I have one'. Turns out they didn't, and it wasn't for lack of trying. Most people have come to the same conclusion.
(Amal Graafstra, one of the earliest people who did it and blogged about it, made a career out of it - but that's only realistic for the first person to do it)
Two things I'd want to know before even entertaining the idea:
1. Are these safe during an MRI?
From what I've been able to find some chips seem fine during an MRI (Kari of MythBusters had one implanted and had an MRI done with no problems on an episode), but the FDA lists MRI incompatibility as a potential health concern for chip implants.
At least one manufacturer that says their chips are safe for MRI do say that people undergoing an MRI with their chips need to be continually monitored visually and aurally and told to alert the operate if the feel anything unusual, and patients who are sedated or anesthetized or confused should not be given MRIs.
2. Will these show up during the security check at airports? I dislike commercial air travel to the point that I have no intention of ever taking it again, but if I do, or if these oppressive security theater shows get extended to other forms of transit that I'm still currently open to, I don't like the idea of something that might trigger more extensive screening.
Bonus concern: how standardized is this stuff? If implanted chips for payments, opening doors, etc., take off and all kinds of places support them, is one chip enough or am I going to need one to unlock my office, one for my home, one for my car, one to pay via my credit card account (or worse, a separate one corresponding to each credit card account), one for buses, one for each store's rewards program, and so on?
Yeah, this is a good question. Something Visa-level reliable might make sense, conditional on your other questions. But getting the Discover implant that doesn't work most places? Or the Diner's Club implant that's the first big player but fades in popularity?
I don't really want to take sides in a format war using my own body.
There's literally only one time I've tried to use a Discover card and not been able to, and it was a local DQ franchise (yet they still took amex?). My wife's daily driver is her Discover It card, and even traveling to small rural towns she's never been in a situation where she had to break out her shelved Visa cards.
That's possible, but both here in Idaho where we live and Mass. where we went for Red Hat Summit this year my wife hasn't had issues using her discover card aside from at that one DQ franchise.
I know many years ago on various credit forums the joke was always that Discover has really bad acceptance rates, but generally speaking I'm much more likely to see a business decline to take an AmEx than Discover assuming they take credit cards at all. Discover's transaction fees are extremely similar to Visa and MC, and most merchant accounts handle it without issue so why not take it?
Personally from a cardholder point of view, my wife loves her Discover card because they're the only bank she has a card with that doesn't make her wade through phone menus only to get routed to some outsourced call center 1/2 the time - having the first option presented when you call being "press 0 to talk to somebody" and always getting an American support representative is pretty awesome.
The justifications for this are so utterly marginal. I'm sure some could benefit but it's vanishingly few people who will.
A ring (as others suggest) gets you most of the benefits - and maybe rings have the downside of being forgotten, but I've left my work passcard a few times over the years and it's not the end of the world... Not so bad I'd prefer a minor surgical procedure!
And the supposed advantage of not getting it caught in things? I might change my mind when I personally know five people who've lost limbs, but right now I know zero people who lost limbs...
> And the supposed advantage of not getting it caught in things?
There are definitely people who take off their rings regularly, like electricians and climbers. But even then, I virtually never hear about them losing rings, and they can put them on any time they'd be shopping. I'm really missing the advantage here.
I remember talking to an ex colleague who worked for now no longer relevant mobile operator, about the setup his colleagues had who worked in Korea:
- they were required to have their "tags" on them all the time as it opened door and things like that...
- but they were also timed on when and how long their toilet breaks were. Or if they went to the canteen too early or stayed too long for their lunch. For all the "offences" their pay was docked.
OK, maybe I'm old or old-fashioned or just not creative enough...
But what exactly are the advantages of this implant over NFC-cards or something like Apple Pay? That I cannot forget my card or my phone? I don't even know when this last happened to me...
Hygiene and safety, I would guess. A card in a lanyard can get caught up in all sorts of machinery and even a wristband can be slightly difficult to keep clean.
But you're likely to notice if your arm is near a piece of machinery -- which was my point. Lanyards and ties? Not so much (in fact, that's one reason why neck-wear such as ties are banned from many such sites -- because of the risk).
My new startup makes employee id bracelets out of sterling silver with embedded rfid chips encased in sapphire, for tech startups that can't figure out how to spend their VC money.
Ah that was the cost to replace an rfid id card when I worked at a big publisher I was assuming the normal rip-off markup that suppliers of these systems charge
Its attached to the user semi-permananetly (not an advantage). Perhaps the customers (the business) are assuming because its implanted it can't be substituted like a smart card and therefore is somehow more secure, which of course it isn't.
Perhaps it does up the threshold for misuse, but still doesn't eliminate it completely.
Just more convenience then I guess. I like the idea that I could just go to store, pick up stuff and walk out and my bank account would just magically get charged for the items. Obviously this is still far away from that (possible) future, but it's a step towards it. I would already be willing to pay not to have to use my credit card at the counter, but instead being able to Jedi wave over the payment terminal.
Funny they think GPS tracking is the problem with this.
The problem is that it's a way to check your identity even if you'd prefer not to voluntarily provide it. I can scan you as you pass our flower pots without your knowledge and, even if, at first, I can't identify you, with time I will.
And by then you won't be able to easily remove the implant.
Facial recognition is improving so rapidly that having an extra microchip does not seem to add much value for identifying people. It's simpler to get the same information from cameras, which are ubiquitous. On the GPS side there's all that location data streaming out of your cell phone, not to mention the semantic information about what you are looking at/doing on the Internet.
There's a lot to be concerned in the privacy realm but many of the threats are already implemented and getting more effective very quickly.
Face recognition is not that great and can be defeated with some tricks (never tried IR paint, but I guess it'd be effective at night). You can also leave your phone in the car or at your house, or give it to someone else who'll be you to those sensors.
It's much harder to detach (and reattach) your hand.
Also, I never volunteered to be tagged by facial recognition (except for my passport) and these people are volunteering to be tagged.
I was wondering the same thing. What happens if you find a hardware fault/vulnerability, and the company has to recall the chips? Do you disable it and leave it inside the person? Do you cut your hand to get it out? This is a bit hilarious tbh.
I liked the part about it being encrypted and secure. Uh-huh. At least until one of these employees picks up something with an embedded RFID cloner... Even if the underlying data in encrypted and considered unusable by the 'bad guy', they can still use it in the encrypted form to impersonate the employee... sooooo....
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Implants are great for both the novelty and the convenience, but I don't like it being pitched as somehow being inherently more secure than a standard access card or whatever (beyond it being more difficult to have your hand stolen or misplaced).
I don't see any immediate problem with that assuming taking it out is relatively painless and there's no cost associated.
I'd like to have one so I wouldn't have to worry if I have office keys with me, instead I could just scan my arm at the door. I've never left my hand at home.
Maybe this is different since I'm coming from non-US point of view so health care is quite different. To me it's obvious that employer's insurance covers implanting, removal, and any issues that it might cause.
The employer might no longer exist (IMO, the probability that a company that does these kinds of experiments goes bankrupt is far from negligible), deny responsibility ("you should have let us take it out when you left the company"), or not pay for all costs (say, you moved state; will they pay travel costs to their appointed expert? Pay for time lost?)
your country of origin shouldn't matter. I'm pretty sure he/she was concerned about health related medical risks, and just because the insurance 'covers' it, provides little solace
What's the worst thing that can happen? It gets infected and needs to be removed and I have to take up to few months of paid sick leave?
Maybe I'm missing something, but all in all this is convenience vs pain value comparison. Does the pain the implant might inflict outweigh the possible benefits.
I bet there is something I'm not considering or I'm misunderstanding something. To me this is pretty straight forward for now.
If it is my time to die then I will die. I don't think we should steer away from something because it is not 100% safe. Like I drive my car each day which is by no means 100% safe.
its a matter of trade-offs and choice. to me, a .000001 chance of a complication is not worth it vs 'just carry a card in your wallet'.
driving a car has many risks, and if I could opt for a card in my wallet as an alternative I certainly would.
I am curious to how old are you roughly? it seems like you are stating you can get a medical complication, take a few weeks sick leave and return to your life, which makes me think you are <25
It really depends what you mean by "medical complication". If we are assuming that we are getting the implant at hospital by a qualified physician risks are already at minimum.
Most likely "complications" would be body rejecting the implant or the wound getting infected. I've had foreign objects in my body (not by choice), they were removed because the wound got infected. I was monitoring the wound, once I thought it didn't look/feel normal I went to clinic and got it checked. Over all I wasn't out of commission for even full four weeks.
You can not control everything. Obviously everyone would prefer to be healthy to being sick or crippled, but getting implant like this is hardly the most dangerous thing people do.
Since I'm not American I can't obviously speak for you. For me money wouldn't be an issue since it would be obvious in this case that the company would bare all the medical costs involved caused by the implant.
I dunno, I'm surprised you thought it was mandatory. Pretty confident in the state of Wisconsin you cannot force someone who does not have life threatening ailments surgery.
The original title is "Wisconsin Company To Implant Microchips In Employees", which is different from the current "Wisconsin Company To Offer To Implant Microchips In Employees".
The difference is not so subtle; atfirst I assumed too that it was mandatory.
Obviously you cannot physically force them, but that doesn't mean it can't be a condition for employment. No being familiar with Wisconsin law, I wouldn't know if that's allowed.
People wear rings all the time, application is painless, easy to change once compromised or if there is a new model, and provides same features. Chips would have advantage if they would provide better IO, but currently they don't.