Employee implants

In 1985, Dr. Hannis Stoddard invented an injectable microchip based pet recovery system. In the last decade Hollywood picked up on the theme by injecting humans with microchips. Who knows what goes on in the secret world of the military and espionage? This week a Wisconsin company made the news when it announced that employees had been offered microchip implants to use as a method for building access and food purchases. This is something that’s happening and is going to change the workplace.

What are Microchips?

Microchips are rice-sized radio frequency identification devices that use passive Near Field Communication (NFC) technology to transmit data when held a few inches away from readers. Passive meaning that the microchips hold data that the reader recognizes but the devices cannot receive data. The devices were popularized in the 1990’s for recovery use in pets, being injected under the skin in the neck/shoulder area.

The technology was tested for office uses in 1998 when British scientist Kevin Warwick experimented with microchip implants to open doors, and switch on lights. The technology has been experimented with since that time for commercial and medical uses with little success or popularity.

In January 2015, the Swedish company Epicenter began offering voluntary implants to its employees. The chips are used as a replacement for magnetic key cards to access secure areas and for use as payment in company stores. For human use in this manner, the microchip is inserted in the fleshy area between the thumb and forefinger. Three Square Market, a Wisconsin technology company, have partnered with the same Swedish company who conducted the inserts for Epicenter and plans on using the technology in the same manner.  This is the first time the technology has been used in a broad setting tagging workers.

Microchipping issues

All new technology brings concerns of privacy and security, which begets legal debate and regulation. In this instance the technology also raises religious concerns.

According the National Conference of State Legislatures, nineteen states have some law referencing microchipping. Five of those states (California, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Wisconsin) have specific laws prohibiting the mandatory implantation of microchips. Some states currently use tag/bracelet based RFID technology to track prisoners. After some recent high profile escapes there has been legislative debate to use tracking implants on prisoners.

Mark Gasson is a British scientist who is a proponent of enhancing humans through the use of implanted technology. In 2009, Gasson inserted a microchip into his own hand and went on to demonstrate that not only could the device be hacked but could receive a computer virus. This and other experiments raise security concerns. Implanted microchips have the potential to store personal and health data. As with any data storage device, the implants would have to be protected against hacking.

Wearable technology is not new to the workplace. Watch like and other devices are used to track employees throughout their day. The November 2016 post, Employee monitoring, gave an overview of wearable tech in the workplace. The concerns raised were legality of employer access to health data as well as monitoring outside of the workplace. With implanted devices the concerns are the same except in this instance the employee cannot be separated from the monitoring device.

Another issue is of a religious concern. Christians believing that this type of technology is another step closer to the writings in the book of Revelation. The EEOC has ruled in favor of Christian employees in past cases where a company has implemented fingerprint scanning.

The few people I've spoken to have said no way. The Swedish company, Epicenter, has parties celebrating an employee's decision to be implanted. The Wisconsin company, Three Square Market, already has fifty employees agreeing to the implants.

Employers considering this or any type of employee tracking devices should do considerable research. Definitely work with an attorney to develop policies and updates to employee handbooks.

Technology is ever changing our world. Whenever any new piece of technology or approach to employee monitoring is introduced there will be legal issues. How the devices are deployed, what they are used for, how data is collected and stored, and what the data is used for will all present legal challenges.

George Orwell is probably very happy.

Read other posts regarding employee monitoring and privacy. Please feel free to share and like.

Employee monitoring November 2016

Social media checks July 2016

Workplace monitoring May 2016

Employee monitoring

German clockmaker Peter Henlein developed a clock that could be worn around one’s neck in the early 1500’s. Called the Nuremberg Egg, the device had a miniature torsion pendulum and coil spring that allowed it to keep fairly accurate time. Since then humans have been obsessed with wearable devices to provide feedback and information on everything from the time to the weather to biometric data. Today’s technology adds the ability to track the device and by association the wearer.

GPS

GPS technology hit the public aviation sector in the 1980’s. In the 1990’s automakers began installing GPS navigation services in their vehicles. Once navigational systems were installed it was a short leap to use the GPS data to track where the vehicle had been by downloading the data. The next step was live tracking of the vehicle, which is commonplace today for most fleet operations and emergency services. The miniaturization of the technology allowed GPS services to be installed in phones and wearable devices.

Businesses have been tracking their fleets for some time. Not only as an accountability measure but also as a way to collect and analyze data to improve routes. In the last several years, companies have been using GPS data from Smartphone’s to track employee locations. Most recently, companies have been issuing employee wearable devices that not only track their location but also performance and sometimes health data.

Wearable devices have become a $15 billion a year market, mostly charged by the introduction of the Fitbit in 2009 and the Apple watch in 2015. As with fleet tracking, business is not missing out on the ability to track employees.

Managers can monitor employee location and production to better understand the needs of the workplace. Studies have shown that employees that are tracked do have better performance. There have been myriad studies over the years that suggest workers perform better not because of new technologies but because they are being watched. Which overall benefits the company.

Legal?

There are legal concerns that have been raised, such as invasion of privacy regarding intrusiveness into the employee’s activities and health data. Some of the devices allow the monitors to see biometric data, which could reveal an employee health issue violating privacy laws.

As the courts and laws catch up with technology the question of legality can be gray. Like phone call/text data and location, data from tracking devices are becoming the status quo for evidence collection. Data from tracking devices have been used for years in auto collision court cases. Personal fitness wearable device data has just recently been introduced to the courts in personal injury cases and police investigations.

Most of the questions arise regarding invasion of privacy, especially outside of the workplace. Company owned vehicles, so far, appear to be legal to install GPS devices and track. However, when a company puts a device on an employee’s personal vehicle it gets trickier. Even company owned vehicles could be targeted as any issue or law can be questioned in court.

Company owned Smartphones seem to fall in the category of the vehicles regarding privacy. Employees don’t have much of a case until the employer requires the use of the phone out side of the workplace, during the employee’s personal time.

Wearable devices issued by a company to employees have not yet been used in a court case. Anytime data is being collected, it is only a matter of time before one party uses the data against the other. Whether it is company v. employee or vice versa.

As with any company policy, how the employees are informed of the policy and how it is implemented goes a long way in keeping the business out of court. As cases start to go through the courts and company policy is examined, the court decisions will affect how policy is shaped from thereon. Simply, one bad policy or managerial decision can change the landscape for everyone.

Worker’s rights advocates will be watching the use of wearable technology in the workplace. As with any new rule of law or technological application businesses should be cautious to jump on the bandwagon until they have thoroughly researched the use of such devices and the end goals for collecting the data.