Why chip-tagging kids is a bad idea
In the wake of the recent disappearance, as yet unresolved, of Madeleine McCann on the Algarve in Portugal, nobody who listens to the British media could have missed the flood of smug mums and drive-by dads castigating the McCann family for leaving their daughter unsupervised for half-an-hour at a time while they ate just yards away (more here). On the Vanessa Feltz show the other day, however, a crazy idea which was first mooted a few years ago was resurrected: that of implanting chips into kids' bodies so that their location can be detected any time and anywhere. Feltz dug up the inventor who had first proposed such technology a few years ago, but had dropped it due to the controversy it caused. Now, it's back, with this nutty inventor having received enquiries from numerous countries, and what better time to discuss it than when a little girl has gone missing?
I was unable to call in because I was either driving or working all the time, but really wanted to, because there seemed to be a misconception that those of us who might be called geeks really wanted this sort of technology inside us, as if we wanted to become living and breathing cyborgs of some sort. In fact, a lot of geeks are staunch libertarians, and do not want the state or some corporate interest controlling their computers, much less themselves.
However, that's not my main objection to the implantation of Radio Frequency ID chips being used on people. My main objection is that, besides occasionally being of use in tracking missing children, it could just as easily be used to trap children and young people in abusive situations, such as when that situation is their home, or a "care" home or boarding school. Such technology could easily allow the police, who are unlikely to ask questions about why the person had run away, to find the person easily and drag them back to the place they had fled, quite possibly for good reason.
And quite apart from this, the chip will remain inside the body for life, or until the person decides to have himself or herself cut open for its removal, and will be usable either for all that time or until it breaks down. In other words, it will still be usable when the child in whose body it was implanted grows up, and no doubt the state will find other uses for it, as will employers. You could even find yourself scanned when entering certain countries, so that they can keep track on your movements and make sure you are going nowhere you are not supposed to - such as to the house of somebody they don't want you talking to.
I did not hear either of my objections; the overwhelming majority were supportive and said they would like something of the sort for their children. I heard two objectors, although there may have been more; one of them said that it could lead to parents becoming complacent, thinking that their children could always be found because of the chips. At the end of the programme, Feltz told us that 70% of those who had participated in a phone-in poll were against the chip implant idea, which surprised me given the climate of opinion among the talkers. Perhaps, if I were a parent, I would like some means of always locating my children; I certainly, however, would not like such a thing implanted in me.
Comments
Assalaamu alaikum,
I don't think we need to implant chips in children, and I hope that Madeleine is found safe, and if someone took her, then they should be punished to the full extent of the law.
OK, I hope I don't come across as a "smug mom", but I do think that the McCanns were irresponsible in leaving their children alone while they spent the evening in a restaurant. I have no doubt that they love their children dearly and didn't intend for this to happen, but actually, I think they've gotten a break because they're white, educated and photogenic. At first, I read that they were checking on the children every half hour, but then they said that they had checked on them at around 9 p.m., and then found her missing just before 10 p.m. And they didn't just leave a three-year-old; they left a three-year-old and two-year-old twins. And it wasn't as if the restaurant was just next to their apartment, where they might see or hear anything that went on. They were some distance from the apartment, and presumably the restaurant had music playing, etc. Anything could have happened - and unfortunately, it did. At the very least, one of those children could have woken up and been confused and terrified because they didn't know where they were, and there would be no adult there for up to an hour.
I live on the 3rd floor of my husband's parents' house, and I never left my children up here alone when they were that age, even just to sit downstairs on the first floor. Even if I wasn't far, I would have been unable to see or hear them, and any parent knows that things can happen even in a minute or two, with two- and three-year-olds (especially with three of them!).
I read the post you linked to, and it's true that even when you're diligent, a child can get away and get lost, or get hurt, etc. (And running out for a minute to take the trash out is different from what happened here.) At least you do you best and don't put them in situations that are obviously dangerous. These were two doctors on vacation in the Algarve; surely they could have paid a babysitter for a few hours.
Posted by: ummabdulla | May 18, 2007 10:11 PM
id tag my daughter but i think there should be an age limit were its removed mibby 10yrs old i have a little girl same age as the lil missing girl and i couldnt imagin going throu that
Posted by: hazza | May 20, 2007 12:39 PM