RFID is now in nearly everything from passports to credit cards to animals.  Even some humans have voluntarily chipped themselves.  RFID is becoming so prevalent that, although the FDA approved human implants, some American States are banning the forced chipping of its residents.  Now, the American Medical Association (AMA) has stated its concern of serious privacy risks due to RFID implants.

I have cited before the implications of implanting RFID chips into humans and the dangers associated with it and part of the AMA report echoes those concerns.  For the record, the AMA isn’t overly concerned with the use of passive RFID tags, which are in use today for patients with certain medical conditions, such as strokes and seizures.  However, there are slight concerns even in these cases.

Because of privacy concerns, these RFID devices only transmit a unique identification code; that code can be matched with records to provide information such as current medication lists and past diagnostic test results. Of course, all of this only works when the patient is being treated by someone with access to appropriately stored medical records, something which is hardly guaranteed.

In their current form, RFID tags do nothing more than provide a patient identifier that can be linked to their computerized records; in effect, this shifts the security burden onto whoever maintains those records.

It is because of the lack of guaranteed privacy and security that the AMA questions the risks of RFID implants in humans.  While the AMA believes that, medically, the implants are safe, it doesn’t think that the current technology of RFID implants is safe enough to use, especially if there isn’t an informed consent from the patient.  The report also wants further monitoring before they will make a final decision.

It calls for continual monitoring of the health benefits and privacy problems with current and future devices, noting that “if objective evidence demonstrates negative consequences that outweigh the benefits in relation to health care, the medical profession will bear an important responsibility to oppose the use of RFID labeling in humans.”

In English, that means the AMA still sees it as their responsibility in case the privacy of the patient is compromised.  It also means that loss or theft of privacy will mean many lawsuits for the AMA and, therefore, they are trying to cover their collective asses over a technology that is, quite frankly, still not secure enough.  The AMA also believes that, as the technology develops, the privacy implications will be even greater.  They rightly recognizes that this is a problem now and that it needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

Although the RFID tags in current use merely connect a patient to their records, the blame still lies with those that control the databases, rather than medical professionals.  Hopefully, the AMA will continue to look at RFID human implants, see its dangers, and continually strive to keep their patients privacy.