An RFID chip is a small electronic device that is implanted in a human body. Such a device is embedded to contain information. These chips are implanted to tell things about a human being, such as identity or contractual information – such as a money debit system. This signifies a risk, since it means the conveyance of information can be cloned.
If I were to carry a programmable RFID chip (which seems to be an easy conclusion about the function of the device) there is no doubt in me I should be allowed freedom to reprogram what such media exhibit. If I were to carry an RFID chip I might argue that such a chip should be subject to free speech.
This is analogous to me being able to change my body through alteration, for instance by plastic surgery or other modification. If I change my appearance in cosmetic surgery am I lying? If I travel to another country on a vacation, and upon my return I return unrecognizable, am I committing a crime? If my corneal pattern, or my finger prints have altered in to an equivalent random pattern then this should be subject to my own freedom of self-determinacy, as long as I am not intentionally attempting to lie about being a specific other person.
I am not allowed to arbitrarily change my passport – my passport is not in effect “mine”. Altering my passport is violation of a contract with the country of which I am a civilian. But in changing my appearance, my fingerprints in a non-deceptive elective manner I am exercising free speech. What if I change my fingerprints with a small stylized “Khannea SunTzu” icon? What would the effect of this be when I were scanned for fingerprints in a foreign country? Would this constitute breach of contract? What if my fingerprints would have been altered into a miniature etched representation of the Mona Lisa?
The same goes might be argued for RFID chips. The presence of RFID chips in my body should constitute the absolute native freedom to alter the information contained depicted by such a device. I might at a later stage agree (or be forced to agree) to a contract to not falsify such an information medium but it might to interesting to what degree my freedoms exist to self-express myself in this manner.
The most extreme dehumanization of scarification for the purpose of involuntarily embedding signs of implied ownership (example, example) is probably an utter unacceptable violation of human rights. We should never allow the dark implications of RFID to end up being an equivalent form of societal tyranny, but that is pretty much self-evident.
,_Museum_of_Liverpool.jpg){kind=link}
