Hypothetical: TSA requiring human chip implants

[FallingAngel 0]

ok, so i'm semi bored working on my government regulation homework, and the question i have to consider is the legal possibility (in the employment sense) of making a human chip implant a condition of employment for all TSA employees who screen passengers and their carry-on bags for commerical flights that originate in the U.S. TSA explains that this condition of employment would be imposed for national security reasons. This assumes that 99.8% of all employees could tolerate the implant without a rash or other medical reaction.

What are your thoughts on this?

Mine initial thoughts are, that they couldn't require it as a condition of employment (violating rights to privacy, ADA, and Title VII to name a few) and two, that current and potential employees wouldn't like this.

DISCLAIMER: As far as I know, this is a hypothetical situation that's being used for my class midterm. I have no knowledge if the TSA is actually considering this.

[quade 4]

Stupid idea of you ask me (which I guess you sort of did).

The only place an implanted RFID chip would make sense (from my point of view) would be to gain access to highly secure areas such as secure areas of the Pentagon, White House or CIA.

An airport screener certainly doesn't meet this test since the airport itself isn't all that secure and the screener certainly isn't passing anywhere in the airport that a huge number of other airport employees wouldn't have access to.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

An airport screener certainly doesn't meet this test since the airport itself isn't all that secure and the screener certainly isn't passing anywhere in the airport that a huge number of other airport employees wouldn't have access to.

But it would allow them to pass through secure areas more easily. I could see it's functionality as a means of convenience for them, not for bolstering security.

As far as the legality of it, I don't see a problem. If they don't like it, don't take that job. I think drug testing is a stupid ridiculous policy and wouldn't work somewhere that does it. But companies have a right to do it if they want to make it a condition of employment.

[DrunkMonkey 0]

If that'd happen, wait for a legion of amputation crimes, and back-alley surgery hacks...

[FallingAngel 0]

i think that if the TSA showed a compelling interest for using the chips, they'd be fine...but if there's no compelling business interest, then they really can't legally use them.

[kelpdiver 2]

I think an implanted chip would be less secure than many of the biometric tools already available. Much easier to copy the radio emissions from an internal device than to capture the retina.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

But it would allow them to pass through secure areas more easily. I could see it's functionality as a means of convenience for them, not for bolstering security.

As far as the legality of it, I don't see a problem. If they don't like it, don't take that job. I think drug testing is a stupid ridiculous policy and wouldn't work somewhere that does it. But companies have a right to do it if they want to make it a condition of employment.

I agree with all in the second part, but not the first. Why would a chip-implanted worker be able to go through security more quickly or efficiently? A person having a chip is not a guarantee that he is not smuggling weapons, explosives or drugs! They'd still have to be checked in that regard. All the chip would do is subtitute for a more-easily-faked (?) photo ID card. Establishing ID is not the hard part of security screening -- making sure that prohibited items are not smuggled through is the hard part.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"