Home / Be The Change / Flex Your rights / Senator Pushes Bill to Ban Mandatory Human Microchips — Because it Could Happen

Senator Pushes Bill to Ban Mandatory Human Microchips — Because it Could Happen

Nevada — A new bill — proposed by a senator who sees the potential for tracking humans to come to fruition — would make mandatory microchipping of humans a Class C felony.

Nevada State Senator Becky Harris believes Senate Bill 109 could be a pre-emptive measure against the worldwide push to implant humans with microchips — and the inspiration for the bill came from one of her constituents.

“As I began to look into the issue I was surprised with the merit that I believe the issue warrants,” Harris told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday.

Under the legislation, radio frequency identification (RFID) chips — or any technology storing personal information that could be used to locate a person — may not be implanted in people without their consent.

“This is a completely new issue,” Harris continued. “I just want a safety measure in place until we better understand the technology and the reasoning behind people’s desire to require implanting chips.”

Many reflexively balk at the idea of having a glass tube-enclosed chip roughly the size of two grains of rice injected under the skin, but businesses overseas — specifically in Belgium and Sweden — have already begun implanting employees with RFIDs.

“It’s done under the idea to unlock doors or use copy machines or maybe pay for lunch, you could use your hand,” Harris explained.

Or, at least, that’s the premise for microchipping at the moment.

“Besides privacy concerns,” the Las Vegas Review-Journal noted, “Harris said the concept raises ethical questions, such as who owns the chip or the information contained on it. And how does someone get ‘de-chipped’ if they are no longer employed by the company that required it.”

Microchips are already commonplace in the United States, to track pets, goods, and — perhaps more controversially — people with Alzheimer’s disease or late-stage dementia. Despite laudable intentions, Nevada’s proposed legislation isn’t devoid of contention, as ABC News reports:

“Sean Sullivan, Washoe County deputy public defender, said the bill may also prohibit radiologists from using tattoos as permanent identifiers of where on patients to aim treatment. Others voiced concerns that it would forbid families and legal guardians of Alzheimer’s patients from deciding to put computer chips in those patients, who often wander in later stages of the disease.”

Injecting a tiny chip containing personal information under one’s skin has long been the subject of dystopian nightmares, as fears some fascist despot could rise to power and exhort total control over the citizenry. Indeed, because the technology is still developing and could be far advanced by the time any government would seek to make microchips mandatory, legal safeguards couldn’t come soon enough.

Senate Bill 109 leaves the option for chip implants up to individuals and removes it from the hands of nosy employers and the State — that is, unless the person injecting the chip doesn’t mind being slapped with a felony.

“There really aren’t, under any circumstance, any justifications for that type of a tracking device on a human being,” ACLU of Nevada Policy Director Holly Welborn told ABC News, adding ‘there’s no impending need to protect people against mandatory microchipping, but there’s no question the technology would violate rights to personal autonomy and privacy.’

Microchips were first approved for human implantation 13 years ago, but have sparked furious debate over the potential for misuse or abuse — whether unintentional or malicious.

Should the new bill pass, Nevada would join California, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin — all passed similar measures after an incident in 2006, in which two employees at an Ohio-based surveillance firm implanted chips in their arms to ‘access protected vaults and police images.’

According to the Review-Journal, virtually no opposition to the legislation was voiced in committee, but no further action has been taken on the bill.

That precautionary legislation has to be introduced to prevent a potentially unprecedented invasion of personal autonomy speaks to both advancements in technology and the human penchant to rush to use it without first considering long-term implications.

  • DDee

    Any supposed medical or employee ID-related use for a microchip could easily and non-invasively be accomplished with a wrist band or bracelet.

    • The Cat’s Vagina

      But then they’d be able to take them off, which would negate the sanctity of our precious data!

  • The Cat’s Vagina

    Yeah, I’m gonna go with NO on the whole “mandatory chip implant” nightmare. Any company that requires it of an employee should be sued for assault! After all, there’s legal precedent for things bosses can and cannot demand as a condition of employment. For example, most states won’t allow an employer to demand that women wear skirts/dresses on the job.

    • MostOfYouRBrainwashed HAHA

      what about strippers? You mean to tell me their employers can’t demand they wear certain kind of clothes 😉

      • The Cat’s Vagina

        Strippers are NEVER employees. Do you honestly think a strip joint is going to want to pay overtime or provide benefits? No, every dancer has to buy a business license so that on paper, the club works for them. Doesn’t often sound that way when the manager is in the dressing room screaming “get out there and sell some drinks.”

  • ManturoQ

    I think the bill really should be restrictive in making it a condition of employment, subject to the consent of a capable person of sound mind. Employers needing that level of surveillance are out of line. But I only see the micro-chipping being needed with child molesters on
    conditional release and Alzheimer’s patients, and some autistic
    individuals that are non-verbal. Some dementia patients are so agitated that they rip up bracelets and other things so that a micro-chip makes sense; but the burden of proof has to be that the patient has before destroyed tags/bracelets or other monitoring equipment so that the last resort is a micro-chip.

    • The Cat’s Vagina

      Why “child molesters” and not murderers? Please don’t buy into that whole hysteria about sex offender registries doing ANYTHING to make ANYONE the least bit safer.

      • ManturoQ

        Murderers usually are put away for life most of the time (not involuntary manslaughter, there’s a distinction). First time sex offenders (I’m talking about assault, not the statutory rape of a 18 year-old and his 16 year-old girlfriend) where they plead to being monitored in the community as part of their sentence to avoid jail time along with submitting to the implanted micro-chip. This would mean that we wouldn’t need sex offender registries for this population that society deems can function but needs monitoring and is mandated to submit to mental health interventions. It would provide law enforcement and the community with the fail safe that they could track the offender. Barring that, we would need to have in place better education and mentoring programs for people who identify as sexual deviants but have not engaged in criminal sex acts (think a pedophile that hasn’t become a child molester, as an example). That, historically, hasn’t worked because it’s poorly funded and people are reticent to identify themselves as suffering from a paraphilias that society deems untreatable and thus a waste of societal resources.

        • The Cat’s Vagina

          Do you honestly believe that you can open that door even an inch without letting anything nasty into the room? If we start “chipping” convicted criminals, I guaran-goddamn-tee that they’re not going to stop with child molesters!

          • Zjitterbug

            What would prevent a known deviant from figuring out how to remove it? Some are crafty enough to get out of ankle monitoring bracelets undetected. I say pass the law now before we have the problem. Companies can use biometric scans for access. I can’t imagine there are that many real life crimes where someone’s eyeball or fingers/thumbs. If someone knew where the chip was implanted and really wanted access to some place, they would just cut it out of the person or cut of the limb. Other than crucial medical data, the chip serves no purpose, other than an invasion of privacy and potential undue control. #BigBrother coming in a big way.

          • Anonymous

            “cut off the limb.”

          • ManturoQ

            Would you not argue then that the problem is the legal definition of sex offender being too broad?

  • IceTrey

    As long as it’s not the government forcing people to get chipped who cares?

  • Sherrie

    No way in hell!!!!!!

  • Cali De Chrome

    They are going to bring it in as helpful then after a while they will start making it harder to get by without it, then they will make it mandatory punishable by death. Watch it’s on the way.

    • Faustian

      Fema camps would of happened already by then. They will sell it off as our enviornment being too dangerous, due to pollution because our government doesnt believe in climate change and allows companies to unnecessarily pollute our earth for money.

  • Di


  • Kari

    The only reason that I am mixed on this topic is that micro-chipping can be beneficial to people who need it but it is a very big no-no for personal data. RFID chips only have whatever data you put on them but they can also be used for tracking locations when you cross a RFID scanning area. They are invasive for good and bad reasons, but primarily bad.

  • B2theG

    These laws are good, but what happens when microchips become standard(like cell phones are now) and parents decide to have their newborns microchipped at birth?