Read the second part of The surprising truths and myths about microchip implants and answer question.
The tech is nothing new
''It is pretty easy to pick up this kind of information on a person without an implant,'' says Kevin Warwick, a professor of cybernetics and deputy vice-chancellor at Coventry University, who became one of the first people ∈ the world to have an RFID chip surgically implanted into his forearm ∈1998. RFID technology is already attached to cargo, aeroplane baggage and products ∈ shops. It‘s used to microchip pets. Many of us carry it around with us all day ∈ our wallets: most modern mobile phones are equipped with RFID, as are contactless cards, many metropolitan travel cards, and e-passports.
It‘s not a huge leap from having this technology ∈ our pockets to having it under our skin. ''The key point is it should be a choice for each individual,'' cautions Warwick. ''If a company says we will only give you a job if you have such an implant, it raises ethical issues.''
It is also worth remembering almost all of us carry a device with us every day that sends far more information about our movements and daily behaviour to companies like Google, Apple and Facebook than a RFID implant ever could.
''Mobile phones are much more dangerous to our privacy,'' says Pawel Rotter, a biomedical engineer at AGH University of Science and Technology ∈Kraków, Poland. ''If hacked, phones can convert into the perfect spy with microphones, cameras and GPS. Compared to them, the privacy risks from RFID are really small.''
Surveillance concerns about the chip on the back of his hand don‘t worry Dave Williams as it can only be activated if placed a few centimetres from a reader. ''Fears of GPSstyle tracking are strictly science fiction at this point,'' he says. He is also keen to emphasise that the procedure to implant it isn‘t as gruesome as some might imagine.
Williams installed his chip himself, using plenty of iodine to keep everything sterile. ''There was almost no pain at all,'' he says. ''Removing the tag will be a little harder, but with a scalpel and pair of tweezers it's not a huge job.''
Hacking and security concerns, however, are less easily hand-waved away. RFID chips can only carry a minuscule 1 kilobyte or so of data, but one researcher at Reading University‘s School of Systems Engineering, Mark Gasson, demonstrated that they are vulnerable to malware.
Gasson had an RFID tag implanted ∈ his \left hand ∈2009, and tweaked it a year later so that it would pass on a computer virus. The experiment uploaded a web address to the computer connected to the reader, which would cause it to download some malware if it was online.
''It was actually a surprisingly violating experience,'' says Gasson. ''I became a danger to the building‘s systems.''
While regular workplace entry cards can be hacked too, the very attribute of an RFID implant that makes it so convenient – the fact
that it can't be forgotten or \left at home – is also its biggest drawback. When a subcutaneous gadget goes wrong, the experience can be far more harrowing.
''Implantable technology can‘t be easily removed or ∈ this case even switched off,'' Gasson says. ''I felt like the implant was a part of my body, so there was a real feeling of helplessness when things weren‘t \right.''
(Adapted from: http://www.bbc.com).
The text shows advantages and disadvantages ∈ relation to chip implants. Analyze the sentences below and mark the alternative that presents only sentences that can be considered DISADVANTAGES∈ relation to chip implants.
I. ''If hacked, phones can convert into the perfect spy with microphones, cameras and GPS. Compared to them, the privacy risks from RFID are really small.''
II. ''I felt like the implant was a part of my body, so there was a real feeling of helplessness when things weren‘t \right.''
III. ''Implantable technology can‘t be easily removed or ∈ this case even switched off.''
IV. ''Mobile phones are much more dangerous to our privacy.''
The sentences are
