Hubbry Logo
Microchip implant (human)Microchip implant (human)Main
Open search
Microchip implant (human)
Community hub
Microchip implant (human)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Microchip implant (human)
Microchip implant (human)
Microchip implant (human)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A human microchip implant is any electronic device implanted subcutaneously (subdermally) usually via an injection. Examples include an identifying integrated circuit RFID device encased in silicate glass which is implanted in the body of a human being. This type of subdermal implant usually contains a unique ID number that can be linked to information contained in an external database, such as identity document, criminal record, medical history, medications, address book, and other potential uses.

History

[edit]
  • 1998: The first experiments with a radio-frequency identification (RFID) implant were carried out in 1998 by the British scientist Kevin Warwick.[1][2][3][4][5] His implant was used to open doors, switch on lights, and cause verbal output within a building. After nine days the implant was removed and has since been held in the Science Museum in London.[6]
  • March 18, 2004: Nokia, Philips (now under NXP Semiconductors) and Sony established the NFC Forum, a non-profit industry formed to advance the use of NFC wireless interaction in consumer electronics, mobile devices and PCs. Standards include the four distinct tag types that provide different communication speeds and capabilities covering flexibility, memory, security, data retention and write endurance. NFC Forum promotes implementation and standardization of NFC technology to ensure interoperability between devices and services.[7]
  • 2018: VivoKey Technologies[8] developed the first cryptographically secure human implantable NFC transponders in 2018. The Spark is an AES128 bit capable ISO/IEC 15693 2 mm by 12 mm bioglass encased injectable device. The Flex One is an implantable contactless secure element, capable of running Java Card applets (software programs) including Bitcoin wallets, PGP, OATH OTP, U2F, WebAuthn, etc. It is encapsulated in a flat, flexible 7 mm × 34 mm × 0.4 mm flat biopolymer shell. Applets can be deployed to the Flex One before or after implantation.
  • 28 August 2020: Neuralink CEO Elon Musk, held a broadcast showcasing a pig with a coin-sized computer chip in her brain to demonstrate the company's plans to create a working brain-to-machine interface for humans.[9]
  • 2021: Dsruptive Subdermals tested a COVID-19 vaccine passport in their bioglass-coated NFC microchip designed to be implanted in the subcutaneous tissue.[10][11] It has been demonstrated by its managing director Hannes Sjöblad who wears the chip in his arm, but the product was not offered for sale.[12]

Chipped individuals

[edit]
A surgeon implants an RFID microchip in the left hand of British scientist Dr Mark Gasson (March 16, 2009)

Several hobbyists, scientists and business personalities have placed RFID microchip implants into their hands or had them inserted by others.

  • 2005, Amal Graafstra: In early March 2005 hobbyist Amal Graafstra[13] implanted a 125 kHz EM4102 bioglass-encased RFID transponder into his left hand. It was used with an access control system to gain entry to his office. Soon after in June 2005 he implanted a more advanced HITAG S 2048 low frequency transponder. In 2006 he authored the book RFID Toys,[14] Graafstra uses his implants to access his home, open car doors, and to log on to his computer. With public interest growing, in 2013 he launched biohacking company Dangerous Things[15] and crowdfunded the world's first implantable NFC transponder in 2014.[16] He has also spoken at various events and promotional gigs[17] including TEDx,[18] and built a smartgun that only fires after reading his implant.[19]
  • 2006, Mikey Sklar: Mikey Sklar had a chip implanted into his left hand and filmed the procedure.[20]
  • 2009, Mark Gasson: On 16 March 2009 British scientist Mark Gasson had a glass capsule RFID device surgically implanted into his left hand. In April 2010 Gasson's team demonstrated how a computer virus could wirelessly infect his implant and then be transmitted on to other systems.[21]
  • 2013, Tim Cannon: In October 2013, Cannon became the first person to be implanted with the Grindhouse-designed biometric sensor known as Circadia, a procedure which was performed by body modification artist Steve Haworth in Essen, Germany.[22][23][24]
  • 2014, Martijn Wismeijer: Dutch marketing manager for Bitcoin ATM manufacturer General Bytes, placed RFID chips in both of his hands to store his Bitcoin private keys and business card.[25]
  • 2014, Nikolas Badminton: In June 2014, during the From Now Conference[26] in Vancouver, Canada, event organizer and futurist Nikolas Badminton had an xNT chip implanted into his left hand on stage by noted biohacker Amal Graafstra.[27]
  • 2015, Jonathan Oxer: Self-implanted an RFID chip in his arm using a veterinary implantation tool.[28]
  • 2015, Patric Lanhed: sent a "bio-payment" of one euro worth of Bitcoin using a chip embedded in his hand.[29]
  • 2016, Hannes Sjöblad: Biohacker Hannes Sjöblad has been experimenting with near field communication (NFC) chip implants since 2015. During his talk at Echappée Voléé 2016 in Paris, Sjöblad disclosed that he has also implanted himself with a chip between his forefinger and thumb and uses it to unlock doors, make payments, unlock his phone, and essentially replacing anything that is put in one's pockets.[30] Additionally, Sjöblad has hosted several "implant parties," where interested individuals can also be implanted with the chip.[31] In October 2021, Sjöblad appeared in a video interview with Aftonbladet where he demonstrated how he receives a QR code when he scans a microchip implant in his arm that contains his EU Digital COVID Certificate (EUDCC).[32][33]
  • Marcel Varallo had an NXP chip coated in Bioglass 8625 inserted into his hand between his forefinger and thumb allowing him to open secure elevators and doors at work, print from secure printers, unlock his mobile phone and home, and store his digital business card for transfer to mobile phones enabled for NFC.[34]
  • 2021, Shain Lakin: In late September 2021 during the Security BSides Perth 2021 Conference, Hacker Shain Lakin demonstrated using an NXP Semiconductors chip inserted into his hand to remotely trigger ignition of a thermite charge in order to destroy a solid-state drive (SSD) inside a personal computer.[35][36]

Types of implants

[edit]

Usage

[edit]

For Microchip implants that are encapsulated in silicate glass, there exists multiple methods to embed the device subcutaneously ranging from placing the microchip implant in a syringe or trocar[39] and piercing under the flesh (subdermal) then releasing the syringe to using a cutting tool such as a surgical scalpel to cut open subdermal and positioning the implant in the open wound.

A list of popular uses for microchip implants are as follows;

Other uses either cosmetic or medical may also include;

Digital identity

[edit]

RFID implants using NFC technologies have been used as access cards ranging for car door entry to building access.[41] Secure identity has also been used to encapsulate or impersonate a users identity via secure element or related technologies.

Medical records

[edit]

Researchers have examined microchip implants in humans in the medical field and they indicate that there are potential benefits and risks to incorporating the device in the medical field. For example, it could be beneficial for noncompliant patients but still poses great risks for potential misuse of the device.[45]

Destron Fearing, a subsidiary of Digital Angel, initially developed the technology for the VeriChip.[46]

In 2004, the VeriChip implanted device and reader were classified as Class II: General controls with special controls by the FDA;[47] that year the FDA also published a draft guidance describing the special controls required to market such devices.[48]

About the size of a grain of rice, the device was typically implanted between the shoulder and elbow area of an individual's right arm. Once scanned at the proper frequency, the chip responded with a unique 16-digit number which could be then linked with information about the user held on a database for identity verification, medical records access and other uses. The insertion procedure was performed under local anesthetic in a physician's office.[49][50]

Privacy advocates raised concerns regarding potential abuse of the chip, with some warning that adoption by governments as a compulsory identification program could lead to erosion of civil liberties, as well as identity theft if the device should be hacked.[50][51][52] Another ethical dilemma posed by the technology, is that people with dementia could possibly benefit the most from an implanted device that contained their medical records, but issues of informed consent are the most difficult in precisely such people.[53]

In June 2007, the American Medical Association declared that "implantable radio frequency identification (RFID) devices may help to identify patients, thereby improving the safety and efficiency of patient care, and may be used to enable secure access to patient clinical information",[54] but in the same year, news reports linking similar devices to cancer caused in laboratory animals.[55]

In 2010, the company, by then called PositiveID, withdrew the product from the market due to poor sales.[56]

In January 2012, PositiveID sold the chip assets to a company called VeriTeQ that was owned by Scott Silverman, the former CEO of Positive ID.[57]

In 2016, JAMM Technologies acquired the chip assets from VeriTeQ; JAMM's business plan was to partner with companies selling implanted medical devices and use the RFID tags to monitor and identify the devices.[58] JAMM Technologies is co-located in the same Plymouth, Minnesota building as Geissler Corporation with Randolph K. Geissler and Donald R. Brattain[59][60] listed as its principals. The website also claims that Geissler was CEO of PositiveID Corporation, Destron Fearing Corporation, and Digital Angel Corporation.[61]

In 2018, a Danish firm called BiChip released a new generation of microchip implant[62] that is intended to be readable from a distance and connected to Internet. The company released an update for its microchip implant to associate it with the Ripple cryptocurrency to allow payments to be made using the implanted microchip.[63]

Patients that undergo NFC implants do so for a variety of reasons ranging from, Biomedical diagnostics, health reasons to gaining new senses,[64] gain biological enhancement, to be part of existing growing movements, for workplace purposes, security, hobbyists and for scientific endeavour.[65]

In 2020, a London-based firm called Impli released a microchip implant that is intended to be used with an accompanying smartphone app. The primary functionality of the implant is as a storage of medical records. The implant can be scanned by any smartphone that has NFC capabilities.[66]

Building access and security

[edit]

In February 2006, CityWatcher, Inc. of Cincinnati, OH became the first company in the world to implant microchips into their employees as part of their building access control and security system. The workers needed the implants to access the company's secure video tape room, as documented in USA Today.[67] The project was initiated and implemented by Six Sigma Security, Inc. The VeriChip Corporation had originally marketed the implant as a way to restrict access to secure facilities such as power plants.

A major drawback for such systems is the relative ease with which the 16-digit ID number contained in a chip implant can be obtained and cloned using a hand-held device, a problem that has been demonstrated publicly by security researcher Jonathan Westhues[68] and documented in the May 2006 issue of Wired magazine,[69] among other places.

  • The Baja Beach Club, a nightclub in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, once used VeriChip implants for identifying VIP guests.[70]
  • The Epicenter in Stockholm, Sweden is using RFID implants for employees to operate security doors, copiers, and pay for lunch.[71]

Proposed uses

[edit]

In 2017, Mike Miller, chief executive of the World Olympians Association, was widely reported as suggesting the use of such implants in athletes in an attempt to reduce problems in sports due to recreational drug use.[72]

Theoretically, a GPS-enabled chip could one day make it possible for individuals to be physically located by latitude, longitude, altitude, and velocity,[citation needed] however GPS devices require constant and not insignificant power to function, and so in practice this would rely on non-existent microscopic batteries with sufficient energy density to power the device for many years without maintenance. Such a chip would require a powerful transmitting antenna similar to those found in modern smart phones in order to actually communicate, which would draw significant power. Even with a very efficient chip, an advanced battery several centimeters on a side, which is significantly larger than could actually be feasibly implanted, would be drained in only a few weeks. However, if widely deployed at some future point, implantable GPS devices could conceivably allow authorities to locate missing people, fugitives, or those who fled a crime scene. Critics contend that the technology could lead to political repression as governments could use implants to track and persecute human rights activists, labor activists, civil dissidents, and political opponents; criminals and domestic abusers could use them to stalk, harass, and/or abduct their victims.

Another suggested application for a tracking implant, discussed in 2008 by the legislature of Indonesia's Irian Jaya would be to monitor the activities of people infected with HIV, aimed at reducing their chances of infecting other people.[73][74] The microchipping section was not, however, included in the final version of the provincial HIV/AIDS Handling bylaw passed by the legislature in December 2008.[75] With current technology, this would not be workable anyway, since there is no implantable device on the market with GPS tracking capability.

Some have theorized[who?] that governments could use implants for:

Criticisms and concerns

[edit]

Infection

[edit]

Infection has been cited as a source of failure within RFID and related microchip implanted individuals, either due to improper implantation techniques, implant rejections or corrosion of implant elements.[76]

MRIs

[edit]
An X-ray of a biohacker's hand showing several implants.

Some chipped individuals have reported being turned away from MRIs due to the presence of magnets in their body.[77] No conclusive investigation has been done on the risks of each type of implant near MRIs, other than anecdotal reports ranging from no problems, requiring hand shielding before proximity, to being denied the MRI.[failed verification – see discussion]

Other medical imaging technologies like X-ray and CT scanners do not pose a similar risk. Rather, X-rays can be used to locate implants.

Corrosion

[edit]

Electronics-based implants contain little material that can corrode. Magnetic implants, however, often contain a substantial amount of metallic elements by volume, and iron, a common implant element, is easily corroded by common elements such as oxygen and water. Implant corrosion occurs when these elements become trapped inside during the encapsulation process, which can cause slow corrosive effect, or the encapsulation fails and allows corrosive elements to come into contact with the magnet. Catastrophic encapsulation failures are usually obvious, resulting in tenderness, discoloration of the skin, and a slight inflammatory response. Small failures however can take much longer to become obvious, resulting in a slow degradation of field strength without many external signs that something is slowly going wrong with the magnet.[78]

Cancer risks

[edit]

In a self-published report,[79] anti-RFID advocate Katherine Albrecht, who refers to RFID devices as "spy chips", cites veterinary and toxicological studies carried out from 1996 to 2006 which found lab rodents injected with microchips as an incidental part of unrelated experiments and dogs implanted with identification microchips sometimes developed cancerous tumors at the injection site (subcutaneous sarcomas) as evidence of a human implantation risk.[80] However, the link between foreign-body tumorigenesis in lab animals and implantation in humans has been publicly refuted as erroneous and misleading[81] and the report's author has been criticized [by whom?] over the use of "provocative" language "not based in scientific fact".[82] Notably, none of the studies cited specifically set out to investigate the cancer risk of implanted microchips and so none of the studies had a control group of animals that did not get implanted. While the issue is considered worthy of further investigation, one of the studies cited cautioned "Blind leaps from the detection of tumors to the prediction of human health risk should be avoided".[83][84][85]

Stolen identity, privacy, security risks

[edit]

The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) of the American Medical Association published a report in 2007 alleging that RFID implanted chips may compromise privacy because even though no information can be stored in an RFID transponder, they allege that there is no assurance that the information contained in the chip can be properly protected.[86]

Stolen identity and privacy has been a major concern with microchip implants being cloned for various nefarious reasons in a process known as Wireless identity theft. Incidents of forced removal of animal implants have been documented,[87] the concern lies in whether this same practice will be used to attack implanted microchipped patients also. Due to low adoption of microchip implants incidents of these physical attacks are rare. Nefarious RFID reprogramming of unprotected or unencrypted microchip tags are also a major security risk consideration.

Risk to human freedom and autonomy

[edit]

There is concern technology can be abused.[88] Opponents have stated that such invasive technology has the potential to be used by governments to create an 'Orwellian' digital dystopia and theorized that in such a world, self-determination, the ability to think freely, and all personal autonomy could be completely lost.[89][90][91]

Ableism

[edit]

In 2019, Elon Musk announced that a company he had founded which deals with microchip implant research, called Neuralink, would be able to "solve" autism and other "brain diseases".[92] This led to a number of critics calling out Musk for his statements, with Dan Robitzski of Neoscope saying, "while schizophrenia can be a debilitating mental condition, autism is more tightly linked to a sense of identity — and listing it as a disease to be solved as Musk did risks further stigmatizing a community pushing for better treatment and representation."[93] Hilary Brueck of Insider agreed, saying, "conditions like autism can't be neatly cataloged as things to "solve." Instead, they lead people to think differently". She went on to argue though that the technology shouldn't be discounted entirely, as it could potentially help people with a variety of disabilities such as blindness and quadriplegia.[94] Fellow Insider writer Isobel Asher Hamilton added, "it was not clear what Musk meant by saying Neuralink could "solve" autism, which is not a disease but a developmental disorder." She then cited The UK's National Autistic Society's website statement, which says, "Autism is not an illness or disease and cannot be 'cured.' Often people feel being autistic is a fundamental aspect of their identity."[95] Tristan Greene of The Next Web stated, in response to Musk, "there's only one problem: autism isn't a disease and it can't be cured or solved. In fact, there's some ethical debate in the medical community over whether autism, which is considered a disorder, should be treated as part of a person's identity and not a 'condition' to be fixed... how freaking cool would it be to actually start your Tesla [electric vehicle] just by thinking? But, maybe... just maybe, the billionaire with access to the world's brightest medical minds who, even after founding a medical startup, still incorrectly thinks that autism is a disease that can be solved or cured shouldn't be someone we trust to shove wires or chips into our brains."[96]

Some autistic people also spoke out against Musk's statement about using microchips to "solve" autism, with Nera Birch of The Mighty, an autistic writer, stating, "autism is a huge part of who I am. It pervades every aspect of my life. Sure, there are days where being neurotypical would make everything so much easier. But I wouldn't trade my autism for the world. I have the unique ability to view the world and experience senses in a way that makes all the negatives of autism worth it. The fact you think I would want to be "cured" is like saying I would rather be nothing than be myself. People with neurodiversity are proud of ourselves. For many of us, we wear our autism as a badge of pride. We have a culture within ourselves. It is not something that needs to be erased. The person with autism is not the problem. Neurotypical people need to stop molding us into something they want to interact with."[97] Florence Grant, an autistic writer for The Independent, stated, "autistic people often have highly-focused interests, also known as special interests. I love my ability to hyperfocus and how passionate I get about things. I also notice small details and things that other people don't see. I see the world differently, through a clear lens, and this means I can identify solutions where other people can't. Does this sound familiar, Elon? My autism is a part of me, and it's not something that can be separated from me. I should be able to exist freely autistic and proud. But for that to happen, the world needs to stop punishing difference and start embracing it." Grant noted that Musk himself had recently admitted that he had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome (itself an outdated diagnosis, the characteristics of which are currently recognized as part of the autism spectrum[98]) while hosting Saturday Night Live.[99]

Musk himself has not specified how Neuralink's microchip technology would "solve" autism, and has not commented publicly on the feedback from autistic people.

Misinformation

[edit]

Despite a lack of evidence demonstrating invasive use or even technical capability of microchip implants, they have been the subject of many conspiracy theories.

The Southern Poverty Law Center reported in 2010 that on the Christian right, there were concerns that implants could be the "mark of the beast" and amongst the Patriot movement there were fears that implants could be used to track people.[100] The same year NPR reported that a myth was circulating online that patients who signed up to receive treatment under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) would be implanted.[101]

In 2016, Snopes reported that being injected with microchips was a "perennial concern to the conspiracy-minded" and noted that a conspiracy theory was circulating in Australia at that time that the government was going to implant all of its citizens.[102]

A 2021 survey by YouGov found that 20% of Americans believed microchips were inside the COVID-19 vaccines.[103][104] A 2021 Facebook post by RT (Russia Today) claimed DARPA had developed a COVID-19 detecting microchip implant.[105][106]

Legislation

[edit]

A few jurisdictions have researched or preemptively passed laws regarding human implantation of microchips.

United States

[edit]

In the United States, many states such as Wisconsin (as of 2006), North Dakota (2007), California (2007), Oklahoma (2008), and Georgia (2010) have laws making it illegal to force a person to have a microchip implanted, though politicians acknowledge they are unaware of cases of such forced implantation.[107][108][109][110] In 2010, Virginia passed a bill forbidding companies from forcing employees to be implanted with tracking devices.[111]

In 2010, Washington's House of Representatives introduced a bill ordering the study of potential monitoring of sex offenders with implanted RFID or similar technology, but it did not pass.[112]

Views

[edit]

The general public are most familiar with microchips in the context of identifying pets.

[edit]

Implanted individuals are considered to be grouped together as part of the transhumanism movement.

"Arkangel", an episode of the drama series Black Mirror, considered the potential for helicopter parenting of an imagined more advanced microchip.

Microchip implants have been explored in cyberpunk media such as Ghost in the Shell, Cyberpunk 2077, and Deus Ex.

Religious beliefs

[edit]
Further information: New World Order conspiracy theory and Apocalypticism

Some Christians make a link between implants and the Biblical Mark of the Beast,[113][114] prophesied to be a future requirement for buying and selling, and a key element of the Book of Revelation.[115][116] Gary Wohlscheid, president of These Last Days Ministries, has argued that "Out of all the technologies with potential to be the mark of the beast, VeriChip has got the best possibility right now."[117]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Microchip implant (human)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A microchip implant consists of a passive (RFID) or (NFC) , encased in biocompatible material and typically measuring about 2 mm by 12 mm, surgically placed under the skin, most commonly in the hand between the thumb and . These devices lack internal batteries and rely on from nearby readers to transmit stored data, such as unique identifiers or encrypted information, enabling applications like contactless payments, secure access to buildings or devices, and storage of medical or personal records. First demonstrated in humans by professor in 1998, who implanted an RFID chip in his arm to allow real-time tracking of his position within a university building via connected computers, the technology has since expanded through voluntary adoption by and early adopters. Despite functional efficacy in short-range interactions—demonstrated by thousands of users in for routine tasks like train ticketing and office entry—adoption remains niche, with global estimates of 50,000 to 100,000 implants as of the early 2020s, driven by convenience rather than necessity. In medical contexts, proponents highlight potential benefits for patient identification and rapid access to or data, as explored in early FDA-cleared systems like VeriChip, though empirical evidence of widespread clinical superiority over alternatives like wristbands is limited. Health risks, including infection at the insertion site, local tissue reactions such as granulomas, and device migration, occur infrequently but underscore the need for sterile procedures and further longitudinal studies, as human-specific data trails veterinary applications where rare sarcomas have been observed in and cats. Privacy and surveillance concerns dominate controversies, as unencrypted or generically readable chips can be scanned using off-the-shelf equipment, potentially enabling unauthorized tracking or data linkage, though proponents argue and user control mitigate these causal risks absent of systemic . Ethical debates center on informed consent and , with U.S. states like enacting 2023 legislation banning employer mandates to preserve voluntary choice, reflecting broader societal wariness despite no verified instances of coercive implantation in credible reports. Market projections indicate modest growth to billions in value by 2030, fueled by biohacking communities and niche corporate perks, yet causal realism suggests scalability hinges on resolving trust deficits through verifiable rather than unsubstantiated fears of dystopian control.

History

Origins and early experiments

The earliest documented implantation of a microchip in a human occurred on November 11, 1997, when American artist inserted an RFID identification transponder—originally designed for pet tagging—into his left ankle as part of his piece . The procedure was broadcast live on television and the , with the chip's unique nine-digit code registered in a databank and capable of being scanned remotely to transmit a low-energy radio signal at 125 kHz. This artistic experiment demonstrated the feasibility of human implantation but focused on conceptual exploration of identity and rather than practical functionality or scientific testing. Scientific experimentation followed shortly thereafter, with British cybernetics professor Kevin Warwick undergoing the first such procedure on August 24, 1998, at Reading University. A silicon RFID chip, approximately the size of a grain of rice, was implanted in his upper left arm during a 20-minute outpatient surgery, enabling the device to interact with environmental sensors for identification and control. The implant allowed Warwick's location to be tracked within the university, automatically opening doors, switching on lights and computers, and sending alerts upon his entry to specific areas, functioning for nine days before removal due to potential infection risks. This "Project Cyborg 1.0" aimed to explore human-machine interfacing and cyborg potential, with Warwick reporting no immediate adverse effects beyond minor surgical discomfort. These initial efforts laid groundwork for subsequent implants, highlighting both the technical viability of subcutaneous RFID devices and early concerns over , such as tissue encapsulation and signal reliability in . No prior human trials were recorded, as the technology stemmed from applications developed in the , with RFID precursors dating to the but lacking implantable form factors until later .

First human adoptions and commercialization

The first documented human implantation of a microchip occurred on August 24, 1998, when British professor had a radio-frequency identification () surgically inserted into his left arm. This experimental procedure, conducted at the , enabled the chip to transmit a unique code that allowed Warwick to activate electronic doors, lights, and computers within the university campus, marking an early demonstration of human-machine interfacing via subcutaneous implants. Commercial development accelerated with the VeriChip, a glass-encased RFID device produced by Applied Digital Solutions (later VeriChip Corporation), initially adapted from animal tagging technology. On September 16, 2001, Dr. Richard Seelig, the company's director of medical applications, became the first person to implant two VeriChips into his arms to streamline emergency medical access and authentication. The U.S. (FDA) cleared VeriChip for human implantation on October 14, 2004, classifying it as a Class II for storing identification codes linked to patient records, which facilitated its marketing for healthcare identification. Early commercialization focused on niche and identification applications. In 2004, the Baja Beach Club in , , began offering VeriChip implants to VIP patrons, enabling cashless payments, expedited entry, and exclusive area access via handheld scanners, with similar programs at its Rotterdam location attracting around 160 implants by 2005. By February 2006, CityWatcher, Inc., a Cincinnati-based firm, became the first company to voluntarily implant VeriChips in employees for building access and computer logins, involving four staff members amid heightened post-9/11 security concerns. VeriChip Corporation reported sales of approximately 7,000 units by June 2007, with an estimated 2,000 human implantations worldwide, primarily in medical and security contexts, though adoption remained limited due to debates and technical vulnerabilities like risks. Adoption of human microchip implants has accelerated in recent years, particularly within biohacking communities, with global estimates indicating between 50,000 and 100,000 individuals have undergone implantation as of 2024. In , a leader in this trend, over 4,000 people had implanted rice-sized RFID microchips by 2025, facilitated by companies like Biohax International offering battery-free, long-lasting devices in a . Market analyses project the human microchipping sector to grow from approximately $1.96 billion in 2025 to $3.15 billion by 2032, reflecting a driven by advancements in minimally invasive subdermal technologies. Biohacking enthusiasts have propelled this expansion since around 2014, organizing implantation parties and online communities such as RFID Implantees, which exceeded 4,000 members by 2021, sharing experiences on embedding NFC and RFID chips for wireless access, payments, and . Companies like Dangerous Things, active since 2005, have sold thousands of implant kits annually by the late , enabling self-insertion or professional procedures for functions like door unlocking and access. This movement emphasizes personal augmentation, with practitioners often implanting multiple chips in the hand, as evidenced by radiographic imaging of polydigital embeddings. The trend aligns with broader biohacking pursuits of through bodily modifications, including RFID for everyday conveniences, though adoption remains niche outside early adopters due to privacy concerns and regulatory hurdles. Pioneering events, such as Three Square Market's voluntary employee chipping for office access, highlighted corporate interest but underscored limited mainstream uptake, with continuing to innovate via open-source designs and community-driven protocols. Projections suggest subdermal implants could see wider integration by leveraging AI and secure data protocols, though empirical data on long-term outcomes remains sparse.

Technology

Types and technical specifications

Human microchip implants primarily consist of passive radio-frequency identification (RFID) and near-field communication (NFC) transponders, which are small electronic devices encapsulated in biocompatible materials such as borosilicate glass for subdermal placement. These devices lack internal power sources and are energized inductively by an external reader's electromagnetic field to transmit data. Low-frequency (LF) RFID implants operate at 125-134 kHz, offering penetration through tissue for read ranges of up to 10 cm with specialized readers, though typically 2-5 cm in practice. They store minimal data, such as a 64- to 128-bit , and examples include chips based on the EM4305 or T5577 protocols, which support basic identification and limited emulation of access credentials. The VeriChip, approved by the U.S. (FDA) in October 2004 as a Class II medical device for patient identification, utilized 134.2 kHz technology with a 16-digit alphanumeric code linked to external databases for medical records. High-frequency (HF) NFC implants function at 13.56 MHz, enabling compatibility with smartphones and contactless systems for read ranges of 1-4 cm. These provide greater data capacity, up to 888 bytes of user-programmable memory in NTAG216-based chips like the xNT, allowing storage of URLs, text, or cryptographic keys for and payments. Both types share standard dimensions of approximately 2 mm in diameter and 10-13 mm in length, with bio-glass encapsulation to prevent migration and ensure biocompatibility, though long-term migration risks have been documented in animal studies extrapolated to humans.
TypeFrequencyData CapacityRead RangeExamples
LF RFID125-134 kHz64-128 bits2-10 cmVeriChip, EM4305, T5577
HF NFC13.56 MHzUp to 888 bytes1-4 cmNTAG216 (xNT), MIFARE

Implantation and functionality

Human microchip implantation generally occurs subcutaneously, most commonly in the dorsal web space between the thumb and , using minimally invasive techniques performed by non-medical professionals such as tattoo or piercing artists. The procedure for smaller, tube-shaped glass-encased chips involves injecting the device via a preloaded or , which pierces the skin and deposits the implant without requiring stitches or extended recovery; the process typically lasts under a minute. Larger, flat rectangular implants may necessitate a small incision for placement. Guidelines recommend maintaining at least 5 mm clearance from bones or other implants to prevent glass shattering and 5 cm separation between chips operating on the same to avoid signal interference. These implants predominantly utilize passive (RFID) or (NFC) technology, lacking an internal battery and deriving power inductively from an external reader's when brought within a short range, typically a few centimeters. Low-frequency RFID variants operate at 125–134 kHz, suitable for basic identification, while high-frequency NFC chips function at 13.56 MHz, enabling exchange for applications like payments or . Common dimensions include 2 mm × 12 mm for injection-compatible cylinders, encased in biocompatible to minimize tissue reaction. Upon activation, the chip modulates the reader's field to transmit stored , such as a or encrypted information, without active transmission power. Read range is limited by the passive design, generally under 10 cm, depending on reader strength and environmental factors.

Current Applications

Identification and access control

Microchip implants for identification and employ (RFID) or (NFC) technologies, allowing users to authenticate identity or grant entry by proximity to compatible readers, typically without physical contact. These subcutaneous devices, often the size of a grain of rice, store unique identifiers that systems verify against authorized databases, replacing traditional keys, badges, or passwords. Corporate adoption has demonstrated practical implementation. In August 2017, Three Square Market, a Wisconsin-based technology firm, voluntarily implanted RFID chips in the hands of approximately 50 employees, enabling door access, computer logins, and vending machine purchases via hand scans; participation grew to 80 by mid-2018. Similar programs in European firms, such as those in , have integrated implants for building entry and secure area access since the mid-2010s, with users reporting reduced reliance on physical credentials. In biohacking communities, NFC-compatible implants from suppliers like Dangerous Things facilitate personal applications, including keyless entry to residences and vehicles through custom-configured readers. These chips emulate existing fobs or cards, with users programming them for ISO 14443A standards compatible with commercial systems. Adoption estimates worldwide range from 50,000 to 100,000 individuals, driven by convenience in daily authentication tasks.

Medical and health tracking

The VeriChip, developed by Applied Digital Solutions and approved by the U.S. in October 2004 for applications, enabled subcutaneous implantation of a passive RFID device in the upper arm to store a unique identification number linked to an external database containing records, including allergies, , medications, and contacts. Scanning the chip with a proprietary reader allowed healthcare providers rapid access to this information during emergencies, with early adopters numbering over 1,000 by August 2005, primarily in the U.S. for high-risk s like those with Alzheimer's or . However, the system relied on centralized databases vulnerable to hacking and required compatible scanners, limiting across healthcare systems. Marketing of the VeriChip ceased in July 2010 when its parent , PositiveID, discontinued production due to low adoption rates, risks, flaws such as easy of the RFID signal, and reports of adverse tissue reactions including potential tumor formation in cited by critics. Subsequent peer-reviewed analyses highlighted that while the chips posed minimal immediate physical risks like or migration, their passive nature—requiring close-range scanning without real-time data transmission—offered limited practical advantages over wearable alternatives like medical alert bracelets, especially given database access dependencies. No large-scale clinical trials demonstrated superior outcomes in emergency care compared to traditional methods. In contemporary biohacking communities as of 2024, NFC-enabled implants such as the NTAG series from vendors like Dangerous Things allow users to self-program small amounts of data (up to 888 bytes) directly onto the chip, including personal details like allergies or records, readable via NFC scanners without external databases. These are implanted in the hand or arm by non-medical professionals and have seen niche use for convenience in self-management, but adoption remains marginal, with no regulatory approval for medical-grade tracking and persistent concerns over data tampering or scanner incompatibility. Active physiological monitoring, such as continuous glucose or tracking, is not feasible with current passive RFID/NFC microchips, which lack power sources for such functions; advanced implantable sensors for this purpose fall outside standard microchip paradigms and involve distinct technologies like bio-integrated electronics still in research phases. from user surveys indicates perceived benefits in quick personal data access but underscores risks of as tech evolves, with no population-level impact data available.

Financial and convenience uses

Microchip implants have been adopted for financial transactions primarily through (NFC) technology, enabling contactless payments akin to those with cards or smartphones. In 2022, Finnish company Walletmor introduced the first commercial NFC payment implant, a rice-grain-sized device weighing less than one gram that links to a user's via a app, allowing purchases at any accepting contactless payments globally. This implant, priced around €99 plus implantation fees, has been marketed as a secure alternative to physical cards, with users waving their hand over payment terminals. In , where adoption is highest, over 6,000 individuals had voluntarily implanted NFC chips by 2025 to replace credit cards and facilitate payments, including at train stations operated by , which began accepting hand-based NFC verification in 2017. A 2022 survey indicated that such implants streamline transactions by eliminating the need to carry wallets, with users reporting reduced fumbling for cards during purchases. Internationally, estimates suggest more than 50,000 people worldwide use subdermal chips for payment functions, often integrated with existing banking infrastructure. For broader convenience, implants serve as multifunctional replacements for keys, badges, and IDs, enhancing daily efficiency. At Sweden's co-working space, 150 employees received RFID implants in 2017 to unlock doors, access photocopiers, and log into computers without physical tokens. Similarly, U.S. firm Three Square Market implanted chips in about 80 employees in 2017, enabling break-room vending machine payments, door access, and system logins via hand scans, which the company described as boosting productivity by minimizing item loss and delays. These uses leverage the implant's passive RFID or NFC signals, readable within centimeters, to automate routine interactions without batteries or recharging. Adoption for convenience remains niche but growing among and tech enthusiasts, with implants costing $50–$200 excluding , often performed in non-medical settings. Proponents cite empirical reductions in forgotten items—e.g., one Swedish user avoided losing house keys multiple times annually—but scalability is limited by regulatory hurdles and consumer hesitancy over permanence.

Empirical Benefits

Enhanced efficiency and convenience

Microchip implants enable hands-free authentication for various everyday functions, such as unlocking doors, starting vehicles, and accessing computers, thereby reducing the need to carry physical keys or cards. At Three Square Market in , approximately 85 of 240 employees opted for voluntary implantation of RFID chips in 2017, primarily to streamline entry to secure areas and logins without badges or passwords, with company president Todd Westby describing it as a convenience measure that also aids . One employee, software engineer Sam Bengtson, reported using the implant 10 to 15 times daily for such RFID interactions by 2018, noting seamless integration into routine workflows. In financial transactions, NFC-enabled implants facilitate contactless at compatible terminals, mimicking or card taps but without external devices. UK-based BioTeq has performed over 500 implantations since 2017, with many users employing chips for alongside , while Walletmor, a British-Polish firm, sold more than 500 payment-specific implants by 2022, allowing immediate post-implantation use for purchases like coffee or groceries wherever contactless systems operate. User Patrick Paumen, implanted in the , described the process as "quick and easy," eliminating reliance on wallets or phones and eliciting positive reactions from cashiers, underscoring perceived gains in transaction speed over traditional methods. These applications collectively minimize physical handling of items, potentially curtailing minor delays associated with searching for keys or cards, though quantitative studies on aggregate time savings remain limited. Proponents, including providers, emphasize reliability over alternatives like fingerprints, citing faster in practical settings. Empirical patterns, such as repeated daily usage reported by early adopters, suggest tangible convenience for individuals integrating multiple functions into a single site, often between and for optimal proximity to readers.

Medical identification advantages

Implantable microchips, such as the VeriChip system approved by the U.S. in October 2004 as a Class II medical device, enable rapid identification of via subcutaneous RFID tags that store a linking to a secure database containing details like allergies, , chronic conditions, and emergency contacts. In emergency scenarios, where patients may be unconscious or unidentified—such as "Jane Doe" cases—scanning the chip with a handheld reader allows healthcare providers to access this information within seconds without relying on potentially unavailable external identifiers like wallets or jewelry. This capability addresses causal gaps in traditional identification methods, where delays in retrieving records can exacerbate outcomes in time-sensitive situations like allergic reactions or drug interactions. The endorsed implantable RFID devices in June 2007, citing their potential to enhance and care efficiency by facilitating quicker data retrieval and reducing errors in high-pressure environments. Unlike wearable alternatives, which can be removed, lost, or overlooked during , subdermal chips remain fixed and tamper-resistant, ensuring persistent access even if clothing is removed or the individual is disoriented. Proponents argue this supports first-responder protocols by minimizing diagnostic delays; for instance, immediate allergy data could prevent fatal missteps, though real-world empirical validation remains constrained by limited adoption rates, with estimates of only thousands of implants globally by the late . Despite these theoretical efficiencies, substantive longitudinal studies on mortality reduction or response time savings are scarce, as widespread implementation has been hindered by concerns and alternatives like electronic health records. Early applications focused on high-risk populations, such as those with or in , where chips aided in preventing errors, but VeriChip's market withdrawal around 2010 underscores that benefits must be weighed against unproven scalability in diverse clinical settings. Current biohacking variants continue to encode personal medical profiles, potentially bridging gaps for individuals with complex needs, yet without randomized trials, advantages remain principally inferential from design intent rather than aggregated outcomes data.

Evidence from user adoption and studies

As of , an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 individuals worldwide have voluntarily received subcutaneous microchip implants, primarily RFID or NFC types for identification and access purposes. This figure reflects niche but growing adoption among , tech enthusiasts, and select organizations, though it remains a small fraction of the global population, indicating limited mainstream uptake despite marketed conveniences. In Sweden, where cultural acceptance of digital integration is high, thousands of users have implanted chips via providers like Biohax, using them for practical applications such as opening doors, logging into computers, paying for , and accessing gym facilities. Users report these implants streamline daily routines by eliminating the need for physical cards or keys, with one estimate citing over 6,000 such procedures by 2023. Similarly, in the United States, Three Square Market implanted RFID chips in approximately 50 of its 80 employees in 2017, enabling purchases, building access, and computer logins without additional hardware. Follow-up accounts from participants describe high satisfaction, with employees citing enhanced efficiency and seamless integration into workflows, leading to voluntary retention and no reported regrets among adopters. Formal post-implantation studies on user satisfaction are scarce, with most focusing on pre-adoption surveys rather than longitudinal outcomes. Cross-sectional surveys of potential users highlight perceived benefits like but also reveal barriers such as concerns, which correlate with low overall willingness despite interest from subsets of respondents. from implant communities, including forums for products like Dangerous Things' xNT NFC chips, indicates users value multifunctionality for and payments, with self-reported experiences emphasizing reliability after initial adaptation, though technical read-range limitations (typically 1-4 cm) require precise positioning. These patterns suggest empirical benefits accrue primarily to early adopters in supportive environments, where chips reduce friction in routine tasks, but broader evidentiary gaps persist due to the technology's elective and experimental status.

Health and Technical Risks

Physical implantation risks

The surgical implantation of subcutaneous microchips, typically performed via a 14- to 18-gauge needle or under , introduces risks akin to those of any procedure, including bacterial infection at the entry site from such as . Foreign body-related infections can arise post-implantation, potentially necessitating treatment or device removal if formation occurs, though reported incidence in cases remains low due to limited large-scale data. Pain during insertion and scarring at the puncture site are additional procedural complications, exacerbated in individuals prone to hypertrophic responses. Adverse tissue reactions, including localized , granuloma formation, or chronic foreign body response, may develop around the bio-incompatible materials like glass-encased RFID transponders, leading to or encapsulation that impairs functionality over time. Migration of the implant from its intended subcutaneous position—often to adjacent tissues or deeper planes—has been documented as a concern by the U.S. since its approval of VeriChip technology, potentially complicating future scans or requiring secondary interventions for retrieval. Mechanical attrition to nearby structures, such as tendons in the hand, has been observed in biohacking contexts where non-sterile or repeated procedures increase friction-related damage. While electromagnetic interference with medical devices like pacemakers poses a theoretical risk, empirical human evidence is sparse, with no confirmed fatalities attributed solely to implantation. Animal studies have linked certain microchip compositions to development at implantation sites, prompting FDA advisories against unsubstantiated medical claims, but causal extrapolation to humans lacks robust longitudinal data beyond rare case reports. Overall, complication rates appear infrequent in voluntary adult adopters—estimated below 1% for serious events in small cohorts—but rise with non-medical implantation environments lacking sterile protocols.

Compatibility and durability issues

Implanted microchip devices, primarily passive RFID transponders encapsulated in biocompatible materials like glass or , face durability challenges due to the body's physiological environment. Manufacturers have claimed lifespans of up to 15 years for devices such as the VeriChip, based on the stability of passive components without batteries, though real-world longevity remains unverified in large human cohorts due to limited long-term tracking. The corrosive effects of bodily fluids can degrade integrated circuits over time, as observed in analogous implantable , potentially leading to electronic failure or encapsulation breaches. Migration of the implant from its insertion site represents a primary concern, with reported cases of devices shifting within soft tissues, which may reduce or cause localized upon contact with or tendons. Such movement, documented in both human and veterinary applications, stems from incomplete tissue around the or mechanical forces during , though incidence rates in humans are not systematically quantified owing to sparse epidemiological data. Failure to maintain position can necessitate re-implantation, as evidenced by individuals opting for multiple chips to address prior malfunctions. Biocompatibility issues further compound durability, including adverse tissue reactions such as chronic inflammation or allergic responses to encapsulation materials, which may erode the implant's integrity or provoke formation. Electrical hazards and with other implants or diagnostic equipment have been noted, though passive designs minimize these risks compared to active variants. Compatibility with medical imaging poses significant hurdles, particularly (MRI), where microchips induce magnetic susceptibility artifacts that obscure nearby anatomical structures, as demonstrated in murine models requiring surgical excision for diagnostic clarity. While some studies indicate preserved post-MRI functionality in tested devices, the artifacts persist regardless of marketed "MR-compatibility," potentially complicating clinical assessments in scanned regions like the hand or spine. Human data on these interactions remain anecdotal, with no large-scale trials establishing failure thresholds, underscoring the need for caution in patients undergoing frequent .

Security vulnerabilities

Human microchip implants, primarily utilizing or NFC technology, are susceptible to and spoofing attacks due to their reliance on unencrypted signals. These passive devices transmit identification data when interrogated by a reader, allowing unauthorized scanning within proximity—typically a few centimeters to meters—without mechanisms in many commercial implementations. A 2006 analysis of the VeriChip system demonstrated that its signals could be eavesdropped, relayed, or using inexpensive hardware, enabling attackers to replicate the implant's for unauthorized access to secured systems. In a notable 2010 experiment, British researcher Mark Gasson implanted an RFID chip in his hand in 2009 and subsequently demonstrated its vulnerability by infecting it with a . The , harmless to the human host but functional on interacting devices, allowed the implant to propagate the virus to external control systems, such as building security networks, effectively turning the implanted individual into a vector for cyber threats. This proof-of-concept highlighted how augmented human implants could bridge biological and digital domains, facilitating malware transmission akin to traditional computing vectors, with the implant's proximity-based interaction enabling "infection" of nearby readers without physical tampering. Further risks include data interception and denial-of-service attacks, where adversaries corrupt or jam NFC communications to disrupt or payment functions. Studies on implantable devices note that while short-range limits remote hacking, advancements in relay attacks—using chained devices to extend signal range—could amplify threats, particularly for chips storing sensitive data like medical records or financial credentials. deficiencies persist in consumer-grade implants, as evidenced by widespread use of basic 125 kHz low-frequency RFID lacking robust protocols, rendering them prone to skimming by off-the-shelf readers. Emerging multifunctional implants integrating or cellular connectivity exacerbate vulnerabilities, exposing users to broader attack surfaces including remote code execution and man-in-the-middle intercepts. Empirical demonstrations, such as Gasson's, underscore that even simple ID chips can be weaponized, with real-world implications for or coerced access in high-stakes environments like workplaces or borders. Peer-reviewed surveys confirm these implants share cybersecurity weaknesses with other IoT devices, including weak key management and update challenges, necessitating hardened designs for human augmentation applications.

Broader Societal Concerns

Privacy and surveillance implications

Implantable microchips in humans, primarily RFID-based devices, enable the storage and transmission of unique identification numbers that can link to extensive in external databases, creating vulnerabilities to unauthorized access and . These chips remain embedded and operational indefinitely unless surgically removed, amplifying risks of persistent erosion compared to removable technologies like cards or phones. Demonstrations, such as the cloning of VeriChip devices by researchers, have illustrated how signals can be intercepted and replicated using off-the-shelf equipment, potentially allowing third parties to impersonate the implantee or access linked medical or financial records without consent. Surveillance implications arise from the chips' readability by proximity scanners, which, while limited to short ranges (typically centimeters to a few meters for passive RFID), could facilitate in environments with dense reader networks, such as workplaces, prisons, or transit hubs. For instance, employer-mandated implants might enable real-time monitoring of employee movements or attendance via automated scans, constituting an intrusive form of biometric that bypasses traditional mechanisms. Legal analyses equate such practices to tortious intrusions upon , as the permanence of implantation precludes simple refusal or disposal, heightening the potential for behavioral profiling or coerced compliance. Although no large-scale data breaches from human implants have been publicly documented as of 2023, the integration of chip IDs with cloud-stored information exposes users to risks from cybersecurity failures in those systems, including hacking or misuse by data custodians. In contexts like , where over 6,000 individuals voluntarily adopted NFC implants for by 2022, operators emphasize user-controlled data, yet critics highlight opaque third-party access and the feasibility of retroactive through historical scan logs. U.S. states including (2006) and (2023) have enacted laws banning coerced implants, explicitly citing fears of government or corporate overreach in enabling akin to expansive tracking infrastructures. These measures reflect empirical caution rooted in demonstrated RFID cloning vulnerabilities rather than speculative dystopias, underscoring that even low-adoption technologies warrant safeguards against scalable harms.

Autonomy and coercion debates

Critics of human microchip implants argue that they pose risks to individual through potential , particularly by employers seeking to integrate them for or monitoring, where refusal could disadvantage workers economically or professionally. For instance, in 2017, the Wisconsin-based company Three Square Market offered voluntary RFID implants to approximately 80 employees for door access and vending machine payments, but this initiative raised concerns about implicit pressure in workplace cultures where opting out might signal non-teamwork. In response, at least 13 U.S. states, including (2006), (2008), and more recently (2023) and (2023), have enacted laws explicitly prohibiting employers or governments from requiring, coercing, or compelling microchip implantation, often classifying violations as felonies punishable by imprisonment. These preemptive bans reflect empirical fears of a toward normalized compulsion, drawing from historical precedents like mandatory workplace drug testing, where initial voluntarism evolved into requirements. Proponents, including and transhumanists, counter that such implants affirm by enabling informed, personal choice over bodily augmentation, akin to elective tattoos or piercings, and emphasize that true requires overt threats rather than mere incentives. Ethical analyses, such as those examining RFID tags, acknowledge coercion risks but note that voluntary adoption—evidenced by thousands of self-implanted individuals in since 2015—demonstrates causal agency without widespread evidence of force. Nonetheless, scholars warn that implants' permanence and potential for remote tracking could erode long-term if societal pressures normalize them, urging robust protocols to mitigate subtle influences like job market biases against non-participants.

Inequality and ethical disparities

Implantation procedures for human microchip devices, such as RFID or NFC chips, typically cost between $60 and $200 for the device itself, with additional medical insertion fees that can exceed $100 depending on the provider and location, creating an initial economic barrier primarily accessible to individuals with disposable income. demographics skew toward younger, tech-savvy professionals in developed economies like and the , where voluntary biohacking communities drive uptake for conveniences such as contactless payments or , while broader public penetration remains low and concentrated among higher socioeconomic groups able to afford non-essential enhancements. This pattern risks entrenching a technological divide, where affluent early adopters gain efficiency advantages unavailable to lower-income populations facing procedural costs or lack of nearby specialized implanters. In healthcare applications, empirical studies of RFID implants for patient identification, based on observations across 23 U.S. hospitals and 80 semi-structured interviews, indicate potential aggravation of access disparities by prioritizing implanted patients in resource-limited settings, without demonstrated net benefits to offset the risks. Such systems may erode trust between patients and providers, particularly among those misunderstanding implant functionalities, further disadvantaging underserved groups reliant on equitable care distribution rather than privatized tech solutions. Ethical disparities arise prominently in coercion risks for vulnerable populations, including low-wage workers potentially pressured by employers to implant for or tracking, prompting preemptive in multiple U.S. states prohibiting mandatory implantation as of 2024. Bioethicists highlight heightened susceptibility among groups like the elderly or cognitively impaired, where may be compromised, as noted in early critiques of implants for non-communicative patients. Cross-sectional surveys reveal participant apprehensions that implants could enable demographic-based , such as restrictions on travel or services for racial minorities, amplifying existing social inequities through data-driven profiling. Globally, adoption disparities reflect technological infrastructure gaps, with thousands implanted in for everyday uses by 2018 but negligible uptake in developing regions, potentially widening north-south divides if implants evolve into prerequisites for aid distribution or employment in unequal economies. These patterns underscore causal risks where benefits accrue to empowered users while burdens like erosion or exclusion fall disproportionately on marginalized cohorts lacking leverage.

Legislation and Regulation

United States developments

In 2004, the U.S. (FDA) approved the VeriChip, the first (RFID) microchip implantable in humans, classifying it as a Class II medical device for storing patient identification and limited health information accessible via external readers. The approval enabled uses such as linking to electronic medical records but required compliance with FDA guidelines on implantation procedures, , and to mitigate risks like migration or adverse tissue reactions. Subsequent FDA oversight has treated similar implantable transponders as bioelectronic devices, subjecting them to premarket notification under 21 CFR Part 807, though voluntary implants for non-medical purposes, such as , fall outside direct FDA jurisdiction unless marketed for health claims. At the federal level, no comprehensive legislation mandates or broadly prohibits human microchip implants, though bills like H.R. 28 (2017) addressed tracking requirements for biological implants procured by the Department of Veterans Affairs, emphasizing vendor accountability without extending to civilian mandatory use. Concerns over privacy and coercion have prompted state-level responses, with legislation focusing on employment contexts to prevent employers from requiring implants as a condition of hire or continued employment. By January 2025, at least 13 states had enacted such prohibitions, including (2019), (2019), (2019), (2019), (2009), (2018), (2021), (2019), (2019), (2006), and more recent additions like (2023, making coerced implantation a Class D punishable by 1-5 years imprisonment) and (2023). These state laws typically allow voluntary implantation but impose penalties for , such as fines or criminal charges, and some require employers to cover removal costs if requested. For instance, Nevada's 2009 statute was the first to explicitly ban mandatory subcutaneous implants, predating widespread adoption concerns, while California's 2019 law prohibits both requirements and retaliatory actions against non-consenting employees. Federal privacy frameworks, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), indirectly apply to medical data stored on implants, but gaps persist in regulating non-medical tracking applications, as noted in legal analyses highlighting insufficient protections against employment-related risks. No major federal bills advancing human implantable chip regulation emerged between 2020 and 2025, leaving state preemptive measures as the primary barrier to coerced adoption.

International approaches

In , voluntary implantation of RFID microchips in humans has become widespread, with approximately 6,000 individuals adopting them by 2020 for purposes such as and payments, though the trend peaked around 2014-2016 and has since declined. No national legislation specifically regulates this practice, allowing private companies like in to facilitate implants without mandatory oversight, reflecting a cultural acceptance of biohacking amid minimal reported adverse events. The approaches human microchip implants primarily through existing frameworks for medical devices and data protection rather than targeted bans. Implants must comply with biocompatibility standards under , as outlined in a 2018 study, which evaluates risks like infection and migration but does not prohibit voluntary use. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) governs any processed via implants, imposing strict and requirements, while workplace applications raise ethical concerns over , prompting calls for enhanced worker protections without outright . In , a 2017 case saw a company voluntarily implant chips in employees for access, sparking debate but no legislative ban, aligning with broader EU scrutiny of privacy implications. Outside Europe, regulatory stances vary with limited adoption. In , RFID chips have been implanted in some personnel for identification, indicating permissive use in contexts without widespread public mandates. Globally, no unified international exists, leaving approaches fragmented: permissive in high-adoption areas like due to low empirical risks observed, and cautious elsewhere under general medical and laws, with emerging discussions on prohibiting forced implants to preserve .

Cultural and Philosophical Perspectives

In science fiction cinema, human microchip implants are frequently portrayed as mechanisms for corporate or governmental control, enhancing abilities at the cost of personal autonomy. The 2018 film Upgrade depicts a paralyzed protagonist receiving a spinal implant that restores mobility and grants superhuman strength, but the device overrides his free will, illustrating fears of technological dependency. Similarly, The Circle (2017) explores a surveillance society where implantable or wearable tech enables constant monitoring, blurring lines between convenience and totalitarianism, though the film focuses more on broader digital ecosystems than subdermal chips specifically. Apocalyptic narratives, particularly those influenced by , often equate mandatory microchip implants with the "mark of the beast" from the , symbolizing enforced loyalty to an antichrist figure for economic participation. In Six: The Mark Unleashed (2004), a post-apocalyptic world requires implants for buying and selling, leading to resistance by believers who view them as satanic. The Mark () expands this trope, portraying a global rollout of tracking chips under the guise of security, which enables mind control and divine judgment. These depictions amplify real-world RFID limitations, attributing active GPS tracking and behavioral manipulation to passive identification devices that lack such capabilities in practice. Television and other media reinforce these themes through episodic cautionary tales. In Demolition Man (1993), implanted locator devices enforce societal compliance in a system, highlighting coercion via subcutaneous tech. Thriller Implanted (2021) centers on a discovering a covert microchip implant that manipulates her actions, emphasizing unauthorized surveillance and . Such representations, while dramatizing erosion, rarely acknowledge empirical data on actual implants' short-range, non-transmissive nature, instead prioritizing narrative tension over technological realism.

Religious and ideological oppositions

Some Christian denominations, particularly evangelical groups, have expressed opposition to human microchip implants by interpreting them as potential fulfillments of the "mark of the beast" described in Revelation 13:16-17, which mandates a mark on the right hand or forehead for buying and selling. Pastors and theologians, such as those cited in reports, argue that voluntary or mandated implants align with end-times prophecies, viewing them as steps toward a global control system incompatible with biblical warnings against altering human identity. This perspective gained traction in discussions around early adopters like Wisconsin's Three Square Market in 2017, where employees opted for RFID chips, prompting claims from figures like prophecy expert Mark Hitchon on platforms such as The Dr. Phil Show that such technologies foreshadow apocalyptic events. Survey data indicates broader : a 2022 Pew Research Center analysis found that 79% of White evangelicals deem widespread brain chip implants as unacceptable interference with nature, a rate higher than among less religious groups, reflecting concerns over divine creation and human exceptionalism. Catholic views show milder wariness, with majorities opposing enhancements but less emphasis on ; however, ethicists like those at highlight fears among some that numerical identifiers evoke symbolism, regardless of intent. Counterarguments within , such as from the Christian Research Institute, assert no direct biblical equation to silicon chips, emphasizing the mark's spiritual rather than technological nature, yet these do not negate the prevalent oppositional stance among conservative Protestants. Ideologically, libertarians oppose microchip implants on grounds of bodily and resistance to coercive , viewing them as gateways to state or corporate overreach that undermine individual . In 2007 protests against VeriChip, libertarians allied with conservatives to decry implants as violations of personal , echoing concerns from consumer privacy advocate about tracking . This aligns with broader ideological critiques from patriot and conservative movements, which frame implants as tools for centralized control, blending fears with distrust of technocratic elites, as noted in analyses of overlapping and policy debates. Such views have influenced preemptive in states like , where bills against forced implants reflect libertarian priorities of voluntary consent over mandated integration with digital systems.

Transhumanist endorsements

Transhumanists view subcutaneous microchip implants, such as RFID and NFC devices, as initial steps toward merging with technology to enhance capabilities beyond natural limits. Proponents argue these implants enable seamless interaction with digital systems, such as unlocking doors or making payments via hand gestures, laying groundwork for more advanced augmentations like neural interfaces. Kevin Warwick, a British cybernetics professor, pioneered human implantation by inserting an RFID chip into his forearm on August 24, 1998, allowing it to transmit signals to computers for controlling lights, doors, and robotic arms as he moved. Warwick described the experiment as demonstrating "" potential, asserting it proved humans could extend sensory and control functions through implants, aligning with transhumanist goals of transcending physical constraints. In subsequent projects, including a 2002 spinal array implant linking his to his wife's, he advocated for such technologies to achieve enhanced and communication, framing them as evolutionary necessities despite ethical debates. Zoltan Istvan, a transhumanist author and former political candidate, implanted an RFID chip in his hand in September 2015 during a biohacking event, using it to unlock doors and authenticate devices. Istvan endorses widespread adoption, claiming implants boost efficiency by replacing keys and passwords with biometric integration, and predicts they will normalize as society embraces technological self-modification for and productivity. He argues resistance stems from unfounded fears rather than rational assessment, positioning chips as tools for human progress akin to smartphones. Ray Kurzweil, a and director of engineering at , extends transhumanist support to advanced implant variants, forecasting that by the 2030s, nanobots—microscopic devices injected via capillaries—will interface directly with the brain to enable cloud connectivity, full-immersion , and exponential cognitive enhancement. While not focusing on current RFID chips, Kurzweil's timeline builds on existing subcutaneous precedents, positing they presage non-invasive or minimally invasive mergers of human and machine intelligence to achieve through backups and upgrades. Biohacker communities, often aligned with , have accelerated endorsements through practical adoption; by 2025, reported thousands using NFC implants for payments and access, with global "grinders" implanting multiple chips for experimental enhancements like magnet senses or . These groups cite empirical successes in functionality without widespread issues, countering skeptics by emphasizing voluntary, reversible procedures as proofs of concept for broader augmentation.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11331163/
  2. https://www.wired.com/2000/02/warwick/
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2082639/
  4. https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/market-insight/human-microchipping-market-5816
  5. https://www.ekac.org/timcap.html
  6. https://www.ekac.org/timec.html
  7. https://digitalartarchive.at/magazine/featured-artist-eduardo-kac/
  8. http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9901/14/chipman.idg/
  9. https://www.scielo.cl/pdf/jotmi/v3n3/art15.pdf
  10. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61008730
  11. https://www.chipsetc.com/verichip---the-rise-and-fall-of-the-human-implant-microchip.html
  12. https://www.dermatologytimes.com/view/fda-approves-worlds-first-implantable-id-chip-humans
  13. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2004/jun/10/onlinesupplement1
  14. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5514631
  15. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1815569905355282/posts/swedens-microchip-implants-convenience-or-concern-2025over-4000-swedes-have-chos/4182195182026064/
  16. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-28/swedish-biohacker-says-bio-implants-movement-growing-globally/10170326
  17. https://www.vice.com/en/article/inside-an-online-community-of-people-with-microchip-implants/
  18. https://www.nanalyze.com/2017/08/who-makes-rfid-chip-implants-humans/
  19. https://dangerousthings.com/
  20. https://www.jhsgo.org/article/S2589-5141%2824%2900057-4/fulltext
  21. https://www.krungsri.com/en/research/research-intelligence/microchip-implants-2025
  22. https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/24/16019530/three-sqaure-market-implant-office-keycard-biohacking-wisconsin
  23. https://ijrpr.com/uploads/V6ISSUE3/IJRPR40744.pdf
  24. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/guidance-documents-medical-devices-and-radiation-emitting-products/implantable-radiofrequency-transponder-system-patient-identification-and-health-information-class-ii
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1656959/
  26. https://www.infosecinstitute.com/resources/general-security/human-implanted-rfid-chips/
  27. https://arstechnica.com/features/2018/01/a-practical-guide-to-microchip-implants/
  28. https://dangerousthings.com/product/next/
  29. https://chip-implants.com/shop/nfc-implant-x2/
  30. https://chip-implants.com/shop/rfid-implant-x1/
  31. https://medicalfuturist.com/rfid-implant-chip/
  32. https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/08/17/140994/this-company-embeds-microchips-in-its-employees-and-they-love-it/
  33. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/11/three-square-market-ceo-explains-its-employee-microchip-implant.html
  34. https://dangerousthings.com/product/xnt/
  35. https://www.hcplive.com/view/verichip
  36. https://www.npr.org/2005/08/15/4800061/implanted-chips-provide-access-to-medical-history
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1618368/
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956566324004664
  39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359076724_Modeling_Subcutaneous_Microchip_Implant_Acceptance_in_the_General_Population_A_Cross-Sectional_Survey_about_Concerns_and_Expectations
  40. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/22/658808705/thousands-of-swedes-are-inserting-microchips-under-their-skin
  41. https://blog.bccresearch.com/human-microchipping-benefits-and-disadvantages
  42. https://carnegiecouncil.org/media/article/preemptive-bans-human-microchip-implants
  43. https://interestingengineering.com/science/company-implanted-microchips-150-employees-hands
  44. https://cdg.us/wisconsin-company-first-in-u-s-to-offer-employees-human-chip-implants-with-payment-processing-implications/
  45. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/08/13/want-an-rfid-chip-implanted-into-your-hand-heres-what-the-diy-surgery-looks-like-video/
  46. https://www.implantable-device.com/2011/12/30/verimeds-human-implantable-verichip-patient-rfid/
  47. https://www.biospace.com/verichip-corporation-announces-american-medical-association-recommends-implantable-rfid-devices-to-improve-the-safety-and-efficiency-of-patient-care
  48. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5802893_What_Are_the_Benefits_and_Risks_of_Fitting_Patients_with_Radiofrequency_Identification_Devices
  49. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1572358/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589514124000574
  51. https://www.facebook.com/groups/small.farming.homesteading/posts/25204243195826398/
  52. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9709/9/1/24
  53. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356880894_Are_we_Ready_to_Use_Microchip_Implants_An_International_Cross-sectional_Study
  54. https://forum.dangerousthings.com/t/sharing-my-experience-with-xnt/11331
  55. https://www.medigraphic.com/cgi-bin/new/resumenI.cgi?IDARTICULO=59893
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0363502320300332
  57. https://www.tudelft.nl/en/2024/eemcs/advancements-in-neural-implant-research-enhance-durability
  58. https://www.bsava.com/resources/veterinary-resources/microchipping-advice/microchipping-adverse-reactions/
  59. https://www.electronicsforu.com/technology-trends/tech-focus/healthcare-microchip-implants
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590006423002442
  61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40693357/
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12501651/
  63. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221830792_Functionality_of_implanted_microchips_following_magnetic_resonance_imaging
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2825188/
  65. https://www.bbc.com/news/10158517
  66. https://www.livescience.com/8290-man-infects-computer-virus.html
  67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160791X23001008
  68. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.00893
  69. https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1121&context=jlt
  70. https://www.informationgovernanceservices.com/articles/microchip-implants-convenience-v-privacy-risks/
  71. https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/sites/ilr.law.uiowa.edu/files/2023-02/Rodriguez.pdf
  72. https://natlawreview.com/article/chipping-away-employee-privacy-legal-implications-rfid-microchip-implants-employees
  73. https://fptsoftware.com/resource-center/blogs/microchip-implants-in-healthcare-when-fiction-comes-to-life
  74. https://www.csis.org/blogs/strategic-technologies-blog/fear-uncertainty-and-doubt-about-human-microchips
  75. https://theconversation.com/microchip-implants-are-threatening-workers-rights-107221
  76. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/human-microchipping-sparks-debate-over-privacy-exploitation
  77. https://www.govtech.com/blogs/lohrmann-on-cybersecurity/should-states-ban-mandatory-human-microchip-implants
  78. https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/title-63/section-63-1-1430/
  79. https://alabamareflector.com/2023/04/28/bill-banning-involuntary-microchip-implanting-passes-alabama-house/
  80. https://theconversation.com/i-choose-to-be-a-cyborg-why-i-implanted-computer-chips-in-my-hands-127089
  81. https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~sohi/cs252/Fall2011/handouts/spectrum07_rfid_ethics.pdf
  82. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23268032_Ethical_Implications_of_Implantable_Radiofrequency_Identification_RFID_Tags_in_Humans
  83. https://publicsurveillance.com/papers/Implanting_Inequality.pdf
  84. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/global-human-microchip-implant-market-insights-sustainability-4xzmf/
  85. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care/article/implanting-inequality-empirical-evidence-of-social-and-ethical-risks-of-implantable-radiofrequency-identification-rfid-devices/49E51218E1788D79B5F209C045FE56CB
  86. https://www.npr.org/2005/11/12/5010736/ethical-questions-raised-over-implantable-chips
  87. https://www.informationweek.com/it-leadership/fda-approves-rfid-tags-for-humans
  88. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/28
  89. https://www.wyomingnews.com/news/local_news/ban-on-forced-employee-microchip-implants-initially-passed-by-senate/article_45e57902-9c41-11ed-a1c6-7f9aa08be9f9.html
  90. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/technology/another-state-bans-employers-microchipping-workers
  91. https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3817029-human-microchip-implants-take-center-stage/
  92. https://eufactcheck.eu/factcheck/true-microchips-are-getting-under-the-skin-of-thousands-in-sweden/
  93. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/614209/IPOL_STU%282018%29614209_EN.pdf
  94. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/34cb538d-58b7-11e8-ab41-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
  95. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2017-001179_EN.html
  96. https://bestsimilar.com/tag/7543-microchip
  97. https://voyantic.com/blog/posts/ethan-hunt-manages-rfid-mission-impossible-in-a-mens-room/
  98. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nprIwTm8_VE
  99. https://www.gotquestions.org/RFID-mark-beast.html
  100. https://cbn.com/news/us/pastor-microchipping-humans-straight-out-revelation
  101. https://www.christianpost.com/voices/human-microchipping-end-times-and-dr-phil.html
  102. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/05/04/highly-religious-americans-more-skeptical-of-human-enhancements-such-as-brain-implants-gene-editing/
  103. https://www.luc.edu/digitalethics/researchinitiatives/essays/archive/2017/implantingmicrochipssignofprogressormarkofthebeast/
  104. https://www.equip.org/bible_answers/is-the-mark-of-the-beast-a-microchip/
  105. https://www.vaildaily.com/news/microchip-implants-protested/
  106. https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/microchip-implantation-feared-sign-end-times/
  107. https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/microchipping-weirds-me-out-too-but-banning-bill-goes-too-far
  108. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-49893869
  109. https://www.cnn.com/style/article/david-vintiner-transhumanism
  110. https://www.wired.com/story/cyborgs/
  111. https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-cyborg-experiments/
  112. https://www.sciencefocus.com/future-technology/cyborgs-transhumans
  113. https://www.businessinsider.com/presidential-candidate-zoltan-istvan-gets-an-rfid-chip-implant-2015-9
  114. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/opinion/chip-technology-implant.html
  115. https://www.ctinsider.com/opinion/openforum/article/Chip-implants-make-humans-more-efficient-12003194.php
  116. https://www.noemamag.com/ray-kurzweil-in-the-2030s-nanobots-in-our-brains-will-make-us-godlike
  117. https://singularityhub.com/2015/10/12/ray-kurzweils-wildest-prediction-nanobots-will-plug-our-brains-into-the-web-by-the-2030s/
  118. https://transhumanist-party.org/2025/08/24/report-status-transhumanism-sweden/
  119. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0pUdupZ-SY
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.