The ability to microchip people for unique positive identification, and for tracking and monitoring applications is becoming increasingly scrutinized by the legal profession, civil libertarians, politicians in positions of power, human rights advocates, and last but not least, citizens across jurisdictions. The United States is among the few nations internationally, that have moved to enact state-level legislation, regarding the microchipping of people in a variety of contexts. This paper provides an overview of nine state laws/bills in the United States of America that have either enacted anti-chipping legislation or have recently proposed bills regarding the enforced chipping of persons.
At the core of neurotechnologies are brain-computer interfaces (BCIs).4 BCIs are devices which connect an individual’s brain to a computer or device (e.g. a smartphone) external to the human body. BCIs facilitate bi-directional communication between the brain and an external device – either transmitting brain data or possibly altering brain activity. Neurotechnologies raise profound human rights problems which may require the international community to rethink its very approach to modern human rights.
Neurowarfare, or the application of neuroscience and technology (NeuroS/T) to warfare and security, involves manipulating the brain and central nervous system to affect mental state, capacity, and behavior, potentially for offensive or defensive purposes
The idea of computer chip implants in the brain may seem futuristic to some, but this development could be widely available in the years to come. At this early stage of development, Americans are generally negative toward the idea of widespread use of computer chip implants in the brain to enhance cognitive function, and few say they would want this for themselves.
The particularity of neurotechnologies is that they allow a direct connection to be established between the human brain and external devices and thus provide a gateway to interfere with mental and cognitive functions. The unprecedented capacity that they offer to external actors to affect an individual’s enjoyment of rights raises enormous ethical challenges and questions the very understanding of the foundational principles of human rights. Neurotechnologies are unique and socially disruptive because they generally: (a) enable the exposition of cognitive processes; (b) enable the direct alteration of a person’s mental processes and thoughts; (c) bypass the individual’s conscious control or awareness;
Learning from the past. How crimes are being dealt.