This work is an important corrective to the idea that technology operates in a vacuum. It is a thorough interdisciplinary study that examines the relationship between technology, “philosophy, ethics, culture, religion, sociology, political science, law, and economics,” and is rooted in the spirit of social analysts and futurists such as Lewis Mumford, Jacques Ellul, Marshall McLuhan, Raymond Kurzweil, Eric Toffler, Nicholas Negroponte, and Bill Gates. The authors present five case studies in chronological order, to demonstrate how technology has “impacted ... the innovation and diffusion of subsequent technologies”: “The five auto-ID technology case studies form the main unit of analysis: bar codes, magnetic stripe cards, smart cards, biometrics, [and] radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags and transponders.” Michael and Michael examine the “big picture question of the social impact of technology.”

The authors are not neo-Luddites; they readily applaud advances in technology that serve the needs of people. Numerous applications assist individuals who want to track children and people who suffer from mental illness, Alzheimer’s disease, autism, or have special needs. Yet, one of the important points to appreciate in this study is its nuanced understanding of how technology impacts society and the fact that using technology involves an ethical component--it is not proper to assume that an activity that is technologically possible is always the ethically correct course of action.

One of the most pervasive actions of national governments today, identifying citizens of individual countries for areas of governmental concern, such as health care, security, and residency, is now “poised to make a debut as an international-based solution.” For some, “only in the community is personal freedom possible.” A result may be “even more invasive technology, nanotechnology.”

The authors raise important points of historic and political debate worldwide. They question the possible misuse of technology by an individual and/or a power base. They encourage ethical debate and discuss the potential risks to the individual that a massive increase in state power may entail, including the potential for abuse. They cite approvingly Albrecht and McIntyre’s work [1], which states that earlier technologies may be “steps to a totalitarian regime.” Referring particularly to the introduction of unique lifetime identifiers (ULIs), Michael and Michael outline “not conspiracy theories but lessons from history.” An ominous example of comprehensive dossiers that were used against citizens is the obsessive Nazi record keeping.

The essential issue of citizen dossiers is not the initial reasoning behind data collection; rather, the primary concern is function creep. For example, “the development of the Global Standard [sic] for Mobile Telecommunications (GSM) requires that a subscriber identity module (SIM) be inserted into a mobile handset.” This innocuous feature can be tracked so accurately that a global positioning system (GPS) handset can triangulate the location of the user within 15 meters and, as accumulated over time, can readily identify and track a user’s movements--an Orwellian development.

Throughout the work, the authors attempt to balance the needs of both citizens and governments. Biometrics are fine, insofar as governments require identification, but a suggested guideline is the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy, unwarranted surveillance, and random citizen data collection. Despite the worldwide terrorist threat after the September 11 attacks, the authors caution that governments should not track citizens without their consent. A sound principle is that citizens should have the right to opt out of any system, for any personal reason. Civil libertarians are rightfully concerned that government action might engender “target captive populations.” Not surprisingly, some of the world’s most repressive governments--including China and Saudi Arabia--have been on the forefront of issuing government smart cards, as the idea of a national ID takes hold.

One of the most intriguing areas of research is the implantation of devices in humans. “The human who has been implanted with a microchip is an Electrophorus, a bearer of electric/electromagnetic technology.” The authors report on individuals who have voluntarily had devices implanted, but they caution against forced implantation as crossing a line of intrusiveness. Several American states have passed laws banning forced implantation.

Finally, the book has some quality control issues that are distracting. On page 210, “to” should be “from”; indeed, the sentence is a comma splice. On page 258, “by” should be “my.” Many of the authors’ points are lost due to the poor quality of the illustrations. Yet, the study is timely and needed. Thus, the prose and questionable quality of the graphics are not ultimately off-putting; the work is still worth reading for its fruitful content.