Q.Veterinarians implant computer chips into pets and farm animals to identify and track them if they get lost. Some people suggest doing so for children. Discuss the privacy implications of such proposals. What are the risks? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Do parents have the right to have the chips implanted in their young children? How about in their teenage children? If the government proposed legally requiring ID chips in children under the age of 5, would you support it? Why or why not?
Depending on people, there are some who oppose this proposal but on the other hand, the
others agree with this suggestion. In my points of view, the main purpose of implanting identifiers especially among people who consent to it is for “just in case and an emergency.”
Let's say I implanted identifiers into my kids. Then after that, I can keep an eye on my
children all day long and keep tracking them where they went. And somewhat I can even predict what they did. It's almost the same that I'm being with them at every second and moment. Those can be helpful for especially parents to keep safe their children who are in danger if "just in case" really happens. However, the risk that I can imagine and I'm worried about is that someone can hack our location information and he/she can use it in a bad way. So identifiers in our bodies can make a situation even worse. For example, the computer chip is supposed to defend kids from dangers by following their pathways if it works properly, but rather maybe a kidnapper can hack the information and use it for kidnapping. So that’s why, in my opinion, the risks outweigh the benefits of implanting identifiers.
Privacy problems are also included in one of the risks. According to the book “A gift of
fire”, there are three key aspects of privacy(Baase and Henry, p.86).
First one is “freedom from intrusion.” Specifically, that means being left alone. From the first one, this computer chip violates the first key aspect of privacy. Although you have a chip in your body, you can think you’re alone without any interruption because it’s not the thing that someone watches and looks at you in person, right in front of you. But you should remember that this chip is operated by the computer. You cannot be alone at all. Like big brother, it can track you for 24 hours without notification.
The second one is “control of information about oneself.” As like I mentioned, this chip is managed by the computer and that means it can be interconnected with the other networks and the Internet. So it does not make sense from the beginning that you can control your personal information. You don’t have a choice once you put that chip into your body. It's the same that you say you're ready to share your location with others. It already becomes public information that you cannot control.
The last one is “freedom from surveillance.”- Not being followed, tracked, watched, and eavesdropped upon. It is not possible to be free from observation with computer-based chips.
As long as you keep the chip into your body, you would be better to think that you don't have privacy anymore and you're always being observed by someone though it looks like normal daily life and like nothing has happened.
Parents, they have the right to protect their children so they can consider inserting the
chip into their kids’ bodies as one of the ways. Let’s suppose that if my kids are less than 5, of course, I would be really concerned about something really wrong can be happened so I’m willing to do something to protect my children in advance. Or I might get help from the chip. But not this way of putting chips in my children in person like a barcode of a product. Instead, it would be better to educate them to be careful about wherever they go because the parents cannot follow their children forever by implanting those identifiers into their kids like this under the name of protection. Needless to say, teenagers are also in the same. Therefore, when I think what I have written above, even if the government proposed legally requiring ID chips in children under the age of 5, I’m going to deny this proposal. Because even though they’re parents and I understand they’re worried about their kids’ safety, they do not have the right to invade their children’s privacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment