Perhaps it was the plethora of sci-fi movies painting implantable RFID microchips as a means for Big Brother to track your every move. The concept of implantable tracking devices evokes fears of stolen identities, information misuse, and a general lack of privacy. Will better security be the ultimate solution or the Achilles heel to implantable RFID?

Implantable RFID is in wide use today. It is estimated that at least 2 million cats and dogs have been tagged with implants. In fact, as I write this blog, my dog Riley’s HomeAgain Microchip Identification card sits here next to the computer. Despite the wide adoption of implants for animals worldwide, the biggest issue in the United States has been the use of a standardized tagging system. With several different implant manufacturers using proprietary tagging technology, the problem hasn’t been with hackers stealing Fido’s social-security number, but rather the failure to identify lost animals. This has required some shelters to carry more than one reader, or purchase multi-protocol readers – an expensive proposition for some volunteer run organizations.

So what about human subjects? VeriChip was the first company, in 2004, to receive FDA certification to implant their RFID microchips into human patients. Privacy advocate Katherine Albrecht may have said it best, “A man with a chip in his arm may soon find himself wondering whether that cute gal on the next bar stool likes his smile or wants to clone his VeriChip. It gives new meaning to the burning question, 'Does she want my number'?" Since FDA approval, a whole host of problems has prevented the widespread adoption of VeriChip's implant:

• Availability of Information – VeriChip uses a proprietary web-based interface. Therefore, availability of patient information is not always guaranteed – a major concern for an emergency room environment.
• Health Risks – given the fact that chips make use of some metals, there have been reports of incompatibility with these implants and MRI devices. VeriChip therefore does not recommend that chipped patients undergo an MRI unless they are fully conscious. There are additional reports that these implants assist in sarcoma formation and are also possibly linked to the development of fast-growing, lethal cancers. Incidence of malignancies has been reported in lab rats and has not been extensively studied in human or pet subjects.
• Religious Concerns – many religions oppose implants and body modifications, a major hurdle in the international market.
• Privacy – VeriChip uses a 16-digit identification number which is linked to a patient’s health record. Even if a hacker were to obtain this unique ID, they would need to have gained secure, password protected access to VeriChip’s patient database to make use of the patient information. However, plans on how to clone VeriChip implants are widely available and can easily be found with a quick web search.

Given all of these challenges, it is clear why the adoption of RFID implants has been slow. With the continued development of international RFID standards, and the use of low-cost external tracking devices, such as patient wristbands, RFID may prove to be a more suitable method for tracking patients - which creates lots of questions revolving around the sustainability of the implantable market. It is for these reasons that may have led VeriChip to ultimately announce the sale of its Implantable RFID Business last month. There may be no need to invest in tin-foil deflector beanies after all!