What do you think about computer chips under the skin? - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

arsenal · 03-28-2007, 05:50 PM

I think this is already being done. I think the prince and prince's over in England have RFID implants, and I think they have medical information on them.

But i could be completely wrong...

Bobblehead · 03-28-2007, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken0042

Didn't you ever watch "Emergency!" as a kid? The paramedics have a radio link to a doctor at the hospital; usually one of the senior physicians too. They could just radio it in.

Seriously though, I'm sure there could be some sort of paramedic access via a wireless Intranet connection.

Yeah, I remember that show. (Station 51, and all the weird alarms - the longer the alarm, the bigger the fire)

I just don't think that sort of remote tech would be reliable enough for life or death.

Then I think you run into issues like how do you know who has the chip and who doesn't? You would need to get all Health regions to buy into one database and standard, or the implant would only work in Calgary (or where-ever).

Too many issues, too many downsides.

Phaneuf3 · 03-28-2007, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I just don't think that sort of remote tech would be reliable enough for life or death.

so every once in a while it fails or someone doesn't have a chip and you're back to the system we have now. for the 999 patients out of 1000 that it didn't fail for it might have saved their lives or at least improved the process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

You would need to get all Health regions to buy into one database and standard, or the implant would only work in Calgary (or where-ever).

wouldn't be hard at all. look at how many standards and protocols exist in the computer world (which is exactly what this would boil down to). even right now as you're accessing this site... do you realize how many protocols and standards are in use?
furthermore, implementing one standard for all this chips would be way more economical as well as making more sense practically.

Phanuthier · 03-28-2007, 07:36 PM

Thats not possible. To make something that small is absurd, difficult to make, likely not robust and I don't even think you can make something that small for this application.

Not to mention that since your outer layer of skin has the highest impedence, and the other side is water, this isn't really realistic.

Alpha_Q · 03-28-2007, 08:13 PM

A chip under the skin would be a blessing compared to this damned 4 lb collar those aliens put around my neck back in 94.

For medical info I think it's a good idea. We'll probably see something like this in our lifetime. (unless you're reading this and your 94) and it won't stop at medical info. I can see a future where your chip is your debit card as well.

photon · 03-28-2007, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Thats not possible. To make something that small is absurd, difficult to make, likely not robust and I don't even think you can make something that small for this application.

Not to mention that since your outer layer of skin has the highest impedence, and the other side is water, this isn't really realistic.

What do you mean? There's already RFID chips used in animals under the skin and RFID chips smaller than a grain of sand.

Or do you mean something that could hold more? Current RFID chips have what, a 64 bit number.. the limitations would be in the size of how much info you could cram into the space and how fast the information can be transferred.

EDIT: http://www.verichipcorp.com/files/img47.jpg

McG · 03-28-2007, 08:33 PM

there was an article about this sort of thing in Wired magazine a few years back.

some issues...

rejection of the device is the first and most obvious. the body just might reject the chip.

transmission and receiving technology...i am no luddite but who knows what the long term impact of this is?

as for "ethical use of info"...anyone remember what SIN numbers were originally supposed to be used for *only*? and now these are used/abused for many purposes that have no legal basis in law in canada.

i'm a computer guy and i don't trust computers.

wireless LANs. any problems there with security?

and can you just imagine the ramifications of someone stealing these things once they are in your arm? scary stuff.

and please don't tell me that the government has any idea how to protect or use this info properly. they don't.

so no...i think this is a terrible idea. i will never get one in my lifetime.

Phanuthier · 03-28-2007, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photon

What do you mean? There's already RFID chips used in animals under the skin and RFID chips smaller than a grain of sand.

Or do you mean something that could hold more? Current RFID chips have what, a 64 bit number.. the limitations would be in the size of how much info you could cram into the space and how fast the information can be transferred.

EDIT: http://www.verichipcorp.com/files/img47.jpg

But we arn't animals. We don't want buldges in our skin where there is a RF ID chip. If they are talking about a RF ID chip, what are they thinking? Under 100nm? Plus, you have a high impedence in skin as I said before, but even if that isn't a problem, how about electrical characteristics in the body? Even nurve impulses? Would you get a Schttkey Diode if one of your nervers fire past this RFID semiconductor?

Also, they'll probably need more then a few bits to be for the info to be stored.

Flames_Gimp · 03-28-2007, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Would the chip include your name? If you were found passed out because of a medical condition, wouldn't you want them to know who you are so they could contact someone, perhaps your spouse or family doctor?

The thing is, any data on there can be grabbed by anyone, friend or foe.

Someone with the right equipment (and it can already be found anywhere - Walmart wants all of its suppliers using RFID to track inventories) they can read anything on those chips.

And it will be easier to read than scanning your credit card because you won't even know that they are doing it.

RFID can be a fantastic and its potential is huge. The problem is the potential for be abused is just as large, and even easier.

(I think Looger knew a lot about this type of stuff - where has he been?)

you have to get real close to someone to hack their RFID, like bump yourr hand against their reader.. from what I've read.

i'm sure you all have seen the guy that tried it in BC... he opens his car, apartment door, logs into his pc by waving his had at the sensors.

I am seriously going to get an RFID implant...

Flames_Gimp · 03-28-2007, 08:43 PM

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28129213@N00/sets/181299

Flames_Gimp · 03-28-2007, 08:44 PM

http://www.amal.net/rfid.html

"Amal has two RFID implants, one in each hand. His left hand contains a 3mm by 13mm EM4102 glass RFID tag that was implanted by a cosmetic surgeon using a scalpel to make a very small cut, into which the implant was placed. His right hand contains a 2mm by 12mm Philips HITAG 2048 S implant with crypto-security features and 255 bytes of read/write memory storage space."

photon · 03-28-2007, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

But we arn't animals. We don't want buldges in our skin where there is a RF ID chip. If they are talking about a RF ID chip, what are they thinking? Under 100nm? Plus, you have a high impedence in skin as I said before, but even if that isn't a problem, how about electrical characteristics in the body? Even nurve impulses? Would you get a Schttkey Diode if one of your nervers fire past this RFID semiconductor?

Also, they'll probably need more then a few bits to be for the info to be stored.

I updated my post with a picture that shows the ones that are rice grain sized. It's encased in a neutral material so there's no interaction between the body and the chip. And the frequency they use plus the close proximity required for the detector makes the electrical characteristics of the body not that important.. or they've at least solved the problem, because they're available in commercial applications right now, even for human use. Pet tracking one of them, and even for VIPs in a bar! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3697940.stm

For bulges, I've heard the webbing between the thumb and the forefinger as a place (I've got a lump of scar tissue in there larger than an RFID chip from a piece of wood I got in there when I was young, I never notice it).

And the even smaller ones:

Though that's without the antenna.

photon · 03-28-2007, 08:54 PM

I do agree about the amount of info though, you can't store much in 128 bits.. if it was for exclusive medical use then you could easily store lots of allergy and condition info (128 yes no questions), but in most cases the bits would be used to have a unique ID that would then be used to pull info from an external database.

SaskaBushFire · 03-28-2007, 08:56 PM

Yes.

Put one in my right now if it saves my life or saves some time.

Phanuthier · 03-28-2007, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photon

I updated my post with a picture that shows the ones that are rice grain sized. It's encased in a neutral material so there's no interaction between the body and the chip. And the frequency they use plus the close proximity required for the detector makes the electrical characteristics of the body not that important.. or they've at least solved the problem, because they're available in commercial applications right now, even for human use. Pet tracking one of them, and even for VIPs in a bar! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3697940.stm

For bulges, I've heard the webbing between the thumb and the forefinger as a place (I've got a lump of scar tissue in there larger than an RFID chip from a piece of wood I got in there when I was young, I never notice it).

And the even smaller ones:

Though that's without the antenna.

And the SNR is good? I'm surprised, I would have thought skin and blood would give too much noise.

sadora · 03-28-2007, 10:36 PM

I like this idea if it means it could save lives. Unless you have something to hide then you have nothing to be afraid of.

Bobblehead · 03-28-2007, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

so every once in a while it fails or someone doesn't have a chip and you're back to the system we have now. for the 999 patients out of 1000 that it didn't fail for it might have saved their lives or at least improved the process.

How often do cell phones drop out? Cell coverage everywhere? It's not like people only have medical issues in urban areas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

wouldn't be hard at all. look at how many standards and protocols exist in the computer world (which is exactly what this would boil down to). even right now as you're accessing this site... do you realize how many protocols and standards are in use?
furthermore, implementing one standard for all this chips would be way more economical as well as making more sense practically.

Absolutely. There are thousands of protocals. But you can't get places to agree on cellular standards CDMA/GSM,TV standards (NTSC/PAL), even 911/999 emergency services. To believe everyone would happily agree to a specific service is unrealistic.

photon · 03-28-2007, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

And the SNR is good? I'm surprised, I would have thought skin and blood would give too much noise.

Good enough for it to work apparently. I guess it depends what frequency it uses, but I haven't been able to find that.

Shazam · 03-28-2007, 11:42 PM

If I can implant it in my buttock, then I'm all for it.

Phaneuf3 · 03-29-2007, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

How often do cell phones drop out? Cell coverage everywhere? It's not like people only have medical issues in urban areas.

so? the thing fails because of malfunction or where you are and.... you're stuck using the methods we have now... its not like you're any worse off for having the chip.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Absolutely. There are thousands of protocals. But you can't get places to agree on cellular standards CDMA/GSM,TV standards (NTSC/PAL), even 911/999 emergency services. To believe everyone would happily agree to a specific service is unrealistic.

but there's also a TON that everyone will (relatively) happily agree on... http, ftp, tcp/ip, dns, etc, etc.

and even if there are two standards for europe and NA, building a reader that could handle both wouldn't be the end of the world. an example of something like this would be cell phones that are compatible with both standards or the switchover from IPv4 to IPv6. however a "stick your head in the sand" type solution would be simply relying on it for 99.99% of the chips that you'll see in your area and the rest you'll have have to deal with the old fashioned way. again, in the case that someone here with a foreign chip that can't be read gets into a serious accident and we can't access their medical records immediately, the paramedics and doctors will just have to do what they've been doing for how many years?

rejecting this idea on the basis that sometimes the system might fail and we'll be forced to do what we do right now is a pretty bad way to go about assesing the situation IMO.