The Dance of the Happy Geeklet.
Apr. 11th, 2002 07:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
camwynSome of you may remember my SWEET MERCIFUL EVIL post from a while back. It related to this article in the BBC Online news. I wrote to the FDA regarding the chip in question - it was an email - and sent copies of the email to my Congressional representative and both my Senators. (Thank you, senate.gov and house.gov...)
Anyway, I wrote to the FDA, not knowing what other government regulatory agency to try. They sent back a note about ten days ago saying they couldn't comment on anything that was pending approval. This is fine, this I can deal with, it means someone read the email.
Then I got another email in reply today. My letter was bounced through at least four people until they found someone who could at least respond to me properly. They called me eloquent. I'm pleased.
Dear (my name here):
This is in response to your e-mail, dated April 9, addressed to the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), regarding the Veri-Chip.
FDA would have regulatory jurisdiction over this implant only if it were
used to gather and transmit medical information. If it were used only for
locating people, it would not be considered a medical device and therefore
not under FDA purview.
Thank you for taking the time to write such an eloquent letter.
Sincerely yours,
Jessica Auerbach
Consumer Section
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
1-800-638-2041, ext. 138
[jxa@cdrh.fda.gov]
***
To Whom It May Concern:
>
> I am writing to you to express my concern over the proposal by Applied
> Digital Solutions to have their VeriChip technology approved for use in
> human beings.
>
> While I can understand the appeal of a technological solution to the
> problem of keeping one's medical records readily available, the proposed
> expansion of VeriChip's capabilities goes entirely too far. According to a
> recent BBC News Online article - available at
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1869000/1869457.stm> -
> Applied Digital Solutions is under some kind of 'pressure' to include
> tracking devices in their chips. '"If a market demand exists for an
> implantable GPS, (Global Positioning Satellite), device of some kind,
> which now seems to be the case, the company will try to meet that demand,"
> said a spokesman for Applied Digital Solutions.', according to the
> article. The spokesman then went on to say that the proposed market was
> South America, where in recent months the number of kidnappings has
> swelled alarmingly. The stated desire was to track kidnap victims.
>
> This prospect is intolerable. There has never yet been an expansion of
> surveillance technology intended solely for 'good' purposes that has
> failed to mutate into an unconscionable expansion of control at the
> expense of human dignity and privacy. The miniature cameras intended to
> curtail property crime and increase personal security promptly found their
> way into private sector ownership, where they have become entirely too
> popular with 'peeping Toms' and other voyeurs - without sufficient legal
> protection for those who do NOT wish to be the target of such
> surveillance. Facial recognition technology intended for security at
> corporate and government institutions has been expanded to indiscriminate
> use at large sporting events in the name of 'capturing criminals for
> security' - and expanded even further without so much as a whimper in the
> wake of September 11th.
>
> Now Applied Digital Solutions proposes that they be allowed to manufacture
> a product that not only tags human beings as if they were dogs, but that
> makes it impossible for the recipient to ever be sure of their privacy
> again. At any given time, for any given reason, the VeriChip might be used
> to determine a person's exact location - without the faintest hint of a
> guarantee that this determination was for a good and pressing reason. Lack
> of search warrants alone have never yet proven proof against law
> enforcement officials who truly wanted to make their case, and no
> technology that I am aware of, short of certain quantum encoding
> experiments, has ever been truly safe against a determined outsider who
> wanted access to the information contained therein. Even if the chips were
> confined to voluntary recipients - which I sincerely doubt they would be,
> as sooner or later some member of Congress would propose their use on
> immigrants, convicts, and people who otherwise fit the 'suspicious'
> profile - there would still come a time when these people would not want
> to be found. This proposed expansion of VeriChip's capability is an
> abrogation of the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
>
> I cannot say anything one way or the other about the safety or efficacy of
> this technology. I am well aware that the Food and Drug Administration's
> purlieu lies almost entirely in the determination of whether a given item
> is both safe and efficacious; however, the BBC News article merely
> indicated that the VeriChip was 'pending US Government approval'. I could
> only assume that the government agency in question was, in fact, the FDA.
> If I am incorrect in this assumption, please tell me so, and let me know
> which agency I ought to express my concerns to. As it stands, I can only
> ask that this technology's legal and social ramifications be seriously
> considered during the remainder of the FDA's regulatory process. If there
> is no other agency to consider, certainly yours must be appealed to in
> order to protect the security and privacy of Americans in future.
>
> Thank you very much. I appreciate your time and trouble in regards to this
> matter.
>
> Sincerely,
Me.
***
I'm just pleased someone actually read what I wrote.
Anyway, I wrote to the FDA, not knowing what other government regulatory agency to try. They sent back a note about ten days ago saying they couldn't comment on anything that was pending approval. This is fine, this I can deal with, it means someone read the email.
Then I got another email in reply today. My letter was bounced through at least four people until they found someone who could at least respond to me properly. They called me eloquent. I'm pleased.
Dear (my name here):
This is in response to your e-mail, dated April 9, addressed to the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), regarding the Veri-Chip.
FDA would have regulatory jurisdiction over this implant only if it were
used to gather and transmit medical information. If it were used only for
locating people, it would not be considered a medical device and therefore
not under FDA purview.
Thank you for taking the time to write such an eloquent letter.
Sincerely yours,
Jessica Auerbach
Consumer Section
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
1-800-638-2041, ext. 138
[jxa@cdrh.fda.gov]
***
To Whom It May Concern:
>
> I am writing to you to express my concern over the proposal by Applied
> Digital Solutions to have their VeriChip technology approved for use in
> human beings.
>
> While I can understand the appeal of a technological solution to the
> problem of keeping one's medical records readily available, the proposed
> expansion of VeriChip's capabilities goes entirely too far. According to a
> recent BBC News Online article - available at
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1869000/1869457.stm> -
> Applied Digital Solutions is under some kind of 'pressure' to include
> tracking devices in their chips. '"If a market demand exists for an
> implantable GPS, (Global Positioning Satellite), device of some kind,
> which now seems to be the case, the company will try to meet that demand,"
> said a spokesman for Applied Digital Solutions.', according to the
> article. The spokesman then went on to say that the proposed market was
> South America, where in recent months the number of kidnappings has
> swelled alarmingly. The stated desire was to track kidnap victims.
>
> This prospect is intolerable. There has never yet been an expansion of
> surveillance technology intended solely for 'good' purposes that has
> failed to mutate into an unconscionable expansion of control at the
> expense of human dignity and privacy. The miniature cameras intended to
> curtail property crime and increase personal security promptly found their
> way into private sector ownership, where they have become entirely too
> popular with 'peeping Toms' and other voyeurs - without sufficient legal
> protection for those who do NOT wish to be the target of such
> surveillance. Facial recognition technology intended for security at
> corporate and government institutions has been expanded to indiscriminate
> use at large sporting events in the name of 'capturing criminals for
> security' - and expanded even further without so much as a whimper in the
> wake of September 11th.
>
> Now Applied Digital Solutions proposes that they be allowed to manufacture
> a product that not only tags human beings as if they were dogs, but that
> makes it impossible for the recipient to ever be sure of their privacy
> again. At any given time, for any given reason, the VeriChip might be used
> to determine a person's exact location - without the faintest hint of a
> guarantee that this determination was for a good and pressing reason. Lack
> of search warrants alone have never yet proven proof against law
> enforcement officials who truly wanted to make their case, and no
> technology that I am aware of, short of certain quantum encoding
> experiments, has ever been truly safe against a determined outsider who
> wanted access to the information contained therein. Even if the chips were
> confined to voluntary recipients - which I sincerely doubt they would be,
> as sooner or later some member of Congress would propose their use on
> immigrants, convicts, and people who otherwise fit the 'suspicious'
> profile - there would still come a time when these people would not want
> to be found. This proposed expansion of VeriChip's capability is an
> abrogation of the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
>
> I cannot say anything one way or the other about the safety or efficacy of
> this technology. I am well aware that the Food and Drug Administration's
> purlieu lies almost entirely in the determination of whether a given item
> is both safe and efficacious; however, the BBC News article merely
> indicated that the VeriChip was 'pending US Government approval'. I could
> only assume that the government agency in question was, in fact, the FDA.
> If I am incorrect in this assumption, please tell me so, and let me know
> which agency I ought to express my concerns to. As it stands, I can only
> ask that this technology's legal and social ramifications be seriously
> considered during the remainder of the FDA's regulatory process. If there
> is no other agency to consider, certainly yours must be appealed to in
> order to protect the security and privacy of Americans in future.
>
> Thank you very much. I appreciate your time and trouble in regards to this
> matter.
>
> Sincerely,
Me.
***
I'm just pleased someone actually read what I wrote.
