The microchip/RFID chip is new latest technology in the our world today. The microchip is a device that has the capability of changing the work place and creating the perfect work environment. But this can also create a terrible work environment because of the condition the workers will be put under. This device has been put in place at certain business for both employees/customers to monitor them. The head of the companies that are placing this devices can use them to monitor all of our movements and track whether their employees have been attending their jobs on time or have they been slacking off. Another reason why employers have been placing this devices into there employees because they wanted to find a new way to increase productivity in their workers. But this could also cause an opposite affect to their workers. The device can estimate the workers ability to complete a task “” This microchip device can increase productivity because of its programming “using the information transmitted from the RFID tags as well as other factors, such as employee location, employee skills, and expected processing or handling time for the goods.” Stated in that article “Methods, systems, and media to improve employee productivity using radio frequency identification”. The device is a machine calculating numbers but a machine can be wrong. It can under estimate people or overestimate people and send the wrong person to the job. Causing even less productivity because the wrong person can be sent to do a job that they are not ready for. Another reason why the this microchip can cause a big uproar in the work place is the constant monitoring. This can be a big problem for some people privacy is a big issue for them. Being that the employee has a constant eye on their workers. But not just in work but also out of work. They have constant tabs on our constant whereabouts. This could lead to stalking for the boss if there are obsessed with one of there employees. They could just long into the systems microchip that allows them to see all of their movements and if they wanted to they could harass them or worst.
Another problem that the device could present if other people obtain he device the can read the RFID chip they can get hold of your information. According to the article “Should people agree to use the Identity chip” is states “without a doubt, privacy and security concerns are the main disadvantage with identity chips. Theoretically, anyone who possesses an RFID reader will be able to obtain your ID number. In turn, they may be able to use this ID number to access the records linked to the number.”(5). Now there is a high risk of a person stealing your information of their phone because they are password protected. If a person obtains RFID/microchip reader than all the would have to be within a certain range to gain the id number. According to this article titled “RFID frequency ranges” the ranges of the RFID chip can “read range of such a tag can be around 3 to 6 or even 8 meters.” Meaning they would only have to be within that range and then they can have the access to their information. This could lead to serious problems with in the companies. In order to stop this problem from occurring they would have to have a restriction on who has access to the RFID chip reader.
Work Cited
Centrenational-rfid.com. (2017). RFID frequency ranges. [online] Available at: http://www.centrenational-rfid.com/rfid-frequency-ranges-article-16-gb-ruid-202.html [Accessed 28 Nov. 2017].
Post, G. (2017). Should people agree to the use of identity chips?. [online] Startup Dope. Available at: http://startupdope.com/people-agree-use-identity-chips/ [Accessed 27 Nov. 2017].
Rowan Counterintuitive 
Jonhjelly, the number of fatal grammar and syntax errors this draft contains is frightening. Every other sentence would fail a grammar check. I don’t know whether the fault is sloppiness and haste—I hope so!— or whether you have spent time on this draft, in which case I would be really frightened.
Assuming you can make the sentences legal and the grammar correct, we should spend a little time on your argument as well. And also note that you’ve written fewer than 500 words for an assignment with a 1000-word minimum.
Your first paragraph says without evidence that microchips are a big benefit to consumers (shoppers in a physical retail environment, I think you mean) by offering deals or discounts. You should probably be clear what you mean by that, perhaps offer an actual example. You then make the wild and unsubstantiated claim that the chips contain all our identification, bank accounts, DMV data, etc., as if there’s only one kind of chip, they’re ALL-OR-NOTHING, and every government and financial agency has loaded them with everything needed to steal our complete identity. That will require some proof, don’t you think?
THEN, if it turns out that some chips DO contain ALL our information, how are they different from the phones we already carry, which we COULD load with all our information, making them just as vulnerable to hacking as the chips? Which one is more vulnerable? What’s your evidence for such a claim? Why should someone with a chip be MORE concerned than someone with a phone? Or should she?
How, in the next paragraph, do you substantiate that THE GOVERNMENT will have access to our location at all times? It may be true, depending on who loaded the chip, who has access to the data our chip transmits, who authorized the chip for what uses . . . but a chip doesn’t automatically empower THE GOVERNMENT to track us, does it? Does the chip in my dog mean the IRS can find my dog?
You cram a couple things uncomfortably into your next paragraph, the VeriChip medical chip and the nuisance to shoppers. The VeriChip, I take it, is a special limited-use chip that contains my medical history and makes it easier to get accurate, informed medical treatment. Presumably, it would avoid the fear of government surveillance, and wouldn’t be attractive to hackers. How that’s useful to your argument, I can’t tell. But the transition to the shopper observation is very abrupt and confusing. Plus, you don’t say HOW shoppers will be annoyed. What did you mean by that?
By the way, I heard a good bit of evidence yesterday in a radio broadcast. Soon (if not already), retailers will be using your body chemistry to communicate with you directly in their stores. Here’s how it works: Your phone app (or chip) is monitoring your vital signs because you asked it to for fitness purposes. When you enter the store, you’re invited to use the store’s app to earn personalized coupons based on what the store already knows about you from your loyalty card purchases. Now the store uses your logon to tap your phone and, when it can tell you’re hesitating over a particular purchase based on changes in your pulse or blood oxygen level, they’ll send you a point-of-decision coupon lowering the price FOR YOU ALONE. That sort of thing.
First, make the grammar as good as you can and invite me back, Jonhjelly. I need to see your work at its best.
Then, be more rigorous in how you employ the sources you’re using. You’re leaving so much good material on the table here. If you truly engage with your sources, you’ll find you can’t squeeze everything you have to say into a mere 1000 words.
Your reactions, please.
LikeLike