A pre-filed bill in the Alabama House would prevent an employer from requiring any employee to be implanted with a microchip.
Microchips are defined by the proposed legislation as a “device subcutaneously implanted in an individual that is passively or actively capable of transmitting personal information to another device using radio frequency [RFID] technology.”
The legislation would not include devices used in the diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, or prevention of a health condition that “only transmits information necessary to carry out the diagnosis, monitoring, treatment or prevention of that health condition.”
Microchips were approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2004 for implantation in humans after being used for years in animals and pets.
They can be used for things such as making purchases, opening doors, and unlocking computers, according to Three Square Market, a company that offered free implants to its employees in 2019.
The bill is similar to other bills passed in states such as Nevada, which the bill’s sponsor, Democrat state Rep. Prince Chestnut, told the Alabama Political Reporter his is modeled after.
Legislation as a Deterrent
Chestnut told the outlet the bill is a preemptive strike to dissuade companies from considering use of the technology in the workplace. The bill will be up for discussion in March and would prevent employers from requiring any employee to take an implant as a condition of employment.
“I ended up running up on this article about a company called Three Market Square out of Wisconsin that was doing it,” Chestnut told the outlet. “I was like, ‘Well that doesn’t seem like a good thing to do.’ Next, folks are probably going to be requiring folks to get a chip just to work.”
A total of 11 states in the country have already banned or limited microchips as a condition for employment, according to the Society for Human Resources Management.
“It’s a preemptive strike,” Susan Kline, a partner at law firm Faegre Drinker in Indianapolis, told SHRM. “It sends a signal of ‘don’t even think about it.’ Why? First, because it’s invasive. Then there are the ramifications in terms of lack of control over what data is collected, and how it is used, and how device mandates put employees in the position of feeling pressured or at risk of retaliation. The Indiana law contains a prohibition against retaliation for refusing to voluntarily receive a device implant.” Chestnut told the Alabama outlet he based his legislation on a similar law enacted in Nevada.
“We have to be careful as a society and take our time to consider the ethical and constitutional implications of technology,” Chestnut said. “Individual liberty and freedom of movement should always remain sacrosanct. Your right to work should not result in your employer being able to trace your steps and place you under a constant state of 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week surveillance.”
The Bill
The bill as written focuses on employers and “certain other individuals” from requiring another individual to be implanted with a microchip, making a violation a Class D felony.
Certain other individuals include: an officer or employee of the state, an individual licensed to sell or provide insurance, and an individual licensed to participate in a business related to bail.
The bill would not prohibit an individual from voluntarily electing to be implanted with a microchip or other permanent identification marker.
Potential Health Risks of Implants
A study by the Journal of Hand Surgery said frequency identification (RFID) technology has been implanted in humans since 1998.
“This practice is little studied but appears to be increasing; rice-sized implants are implanted by hobbyists and even offered by some employers for uses ranging from access to emergency medical records to entry to secured workstations,” the journal reported. “The US Food and Drug Administration first approved this technology in 2004, with stated potential risks including adverse tissue reaction, migration of the implanted transponder, compromise of information security, electrical hazards, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) incompatibility.”
