Would Implanting Every Human with a Microchip Eradicate Crime in the Future?

Recent discussions in the tech world have hinted at the possibility of implanting microchips in humans at birth. The idea is compelling, as it suggests a way to reduce crime and improve public safety. However, a closer examination reveals some significant challenges. Let’s delve into why such an initiative may not actually work and explore what these “microchips” would actually do.

Microchipping in Practice

The concept of microchipping isn't new; it's used extensively in animal rescue and identification. For example, at a dog rescue organization, volunteers microchip dogs to help ensure their safe adoption. The process involves holding the dog still, placing a scanner close to the shoulder, and slowly scanning the shoulder area until the chip number appears. If the chip is not found, the process is repeated, often involving scanning other parts of the dog to locate the chip or, in some cases, re-chipping the dog entirely. This illustrates a few critical points:

Mechanically, microchips can migrate under the skin. Detectors only work when very close to an active scanner. Without a comprehensive and reliable method for tracking and maintaining chip data, the technology is flawed.

Implanting microchips in every human at birth is not a straightforward solution to eradicate crime. Scanners would need to be ubiquitous and precise, which is impractical and costly. Additionally, microchips can migrate or be lost, making their utility questionable.

Controlling and Monitoring Behavior

Trying to monitor and control human behavior using microchips is an immense task that far exceeds current technological capabilities. For example, simply tracking everyone's location would be a monumental challenge. Here are a few scenarios and challenges:

Location Tracking: Even if we could track everyone’s location in real-time, how would this prevent crimes committed in different locations? Computer crimes, for instance, can occur anywhere with an internet connection. Human Rights Concerns: The potential for misuse is significant. While the technology might help track criminals, it could also infringe on personal freedoms and privacy. Governments would need to justify the invasion of privacy and ensure it aligns with human rights standards. Technological Limitations: Current technologies have limitations. For example, in the case of a woman being raped, it’s unlikely that carrying a chip would provide a precise identifier for her rapist, given that an attacker may not have a chip. Internet Scammers: Much internet crime is impersonal and done remotely. Without physical contact or a specific identifying factor, a microchip may not deter or track such criminals. Drinking and Driving: Microchips do not deter individuals from drinking and then driving. The act of drinking and driving is a matter of personal choice and conscience, not a technical solution. Shoplifting: Microchips would not automatically stop shoplifters. They would still need to be physically scanned, which is not always practical or possible when shoplifting occurs.

Additionally, the state would need to decide who to track and when. This implies tracking people only after they have committed crimes, which is not a proactive approach to crime prevention. It also raises the question of who defines what constitutes a crime.

Conclusion

Microchipping humans at birth is a technology that may not lead to the eradication of crime. It offers limited practical applications and raises significant ethical and practical challenges. Instead of relying on such a solution, society should focus on education, legal frameworks, and community engagement to address the root causes of crime.