Enrolling in ST001, Introduction to Science and Technology, has been an intellectually transformative experience, shaping my perspectives on science and technology in profound ways. The diverse array of resource materials covered in this module, spanning ethnographic contexts, lectures, course readings, and discussion sections, has been instrumental in broadening my understanding of the intricate relationship between science, technology, and societal dynamics. At the outset of the course, the lecturer was explicitly clear on the fact that technology and science are inevitable in our everyday lives. In today’s dynamic world, a life without technology would be pointless.
Before taking this course, my perception of science and technology was somewhat confined to a linear model, where advancements in these fields were seen as positive and progressive. I hold the belief that we are living in an age where technological advancements have made life more convenient and efficient than ever before. This is because it is by utilizing cutting-edge technologies that humanity has been able to break down many barriers that barred us from achieving our goals. However, the course content, particularly by scholars such as Thomas Gieryn, Donald Mackenzie, and Judy Wajcman, challenged this view. Mackenzie’s exploration of the positive and negative impacts of technology and Thomas Gieryn’s discussions on the co-productivity of technology forced me to reconsider the inherent values embedded in scientific technology. Indeed, the convenience and efficiency brought about by scientific and technological innovations are not without cost. In addition, the ethnographic contexts and discussions presented in class showcased the living experiences of communities affected by technological advancements. Such interactive classroom activities have provided a more nuanced appreciation of the socio-cultural dimensions inherent in the adaptation to new technologies and scientific innovations.
As a tech enthusiast, the course materials, lectures, and open forum discussions on Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology played a crucial role in shaping my understanding of this technology as well as strengthening the arguments presented in my final report. The readings, particularly Martin et al. (2023) and Handley (2022), have been instrumental in shaping my approach to the socio-cultural dimensions of this technology. Nevertheless, the lectures on political and legal aspects of science and technology have been instrumental in shaping my understanding of the intricate web of regulations surrounding RFID in guns. I aim to use the insights gleaned from these course materials to analyze the complex interplay of the key socio-cultural dimensions in the context of RFID. Overall, the theoretical grounding gained after taking this course has not only broadened my intellectual horizons but also empowered me to approach the final report on RFID chips in guns with a more informed and critical perspective.
Introduction to the Case Study: RFID Chips in Guns
In the ever-evolving landscape of science and technology, the integration of RFID chips into guns has emerged as a captivating development. By definition, RFID is a wireless technology that uses radio waves to passively identify a tagged object (Want, 2022). This wireless technology works through a small electronic device, commonly referred to as a microchip, that has information stored on it. Although the microchips are quite small, they can hold large amounts of data. It is worth noting that an RFID system comprises two components: tags and readers (Luo et al., 2020). Usually, the reader is a device that has multiple antennas that emit radio waves and receive signals back from the RFID tag. On the other hand, the tags use radio waves to communicate their identity and other information to nearby readers. These tags are further categorized into active and passive tags. The difference between the two is that active RFID tags are powered by batteries, while passive tags do not have a battery and are powered by the reader.
The integration of RFID technology into guns represents a pivotal convergence of technology and the imperative to enhance gun safety and regulation. This is because, in an ideal RFID-enabled gun, only the authorized user can fire the weapon. To truly understand the significance of this integration, it is imperative to unveil the core functionalities of RFID guns. RFID guns have embedded tags, which are small electronic devices programmed to have a unique identifier (Want, 2022). For the RFID gun to be functional, the tags must be complimented by RFID readers. In the context of firearms, RFID technology introduces electronic identification to individual firearms. A radio chip responsible for access to the gun, in this case thee RFID tag, is placed in the gun’s handle and a corresponding chip, the RFID reader, is placed on a ring, watch, bracelet, or even implanted in thee authorized user’s hand (Griffiths, 2014). RFID tag actually has a specific code and this code serves as the unique identifier of each gun it belongs to. This would be a more advanced electronic identification that allows real-time tracking and monitoring, offering an actionable intervention to promote gun accountability. Authorized dealers can also get real-time monitoring of their inventory, which ensures that they have accurate inventory counts, thus minimizing the chances of stockouts or overstocking.
Aside from real-time monitoring, the integration of RFID chips in guns can also serve as a possible solution to the problems with gun safety. The safety aspect of the firearm is based on user identification established through RFID technology. The gun handle houses an RFID with unique serial identification that grants access to the firearm (Keane, 2023). A complementary chip is then attached to a wearable, such as a watch, ring, bracelet, or even implant in the user’s hand. The mechanism functions in such a way that the gun’s trigger will only unlock if the two chips are in close proximity, typically within inches of each other (Duroc, 2022). Additionally, an alternative method for releasing the safety mechanism involves a radio-controlled device, like a watch, which can be activated through the input of a Personal Identification Number (PIN) code. If, for any reason, the two chips are not in close proximity or if the radio contact is disrupted—such as if the watch is knocked out of the shooter’s hand, lost, or stolen—the firearm automatically deactivates itself, ensuring an additional layer of security and preventing unauthorized use.
While the potential benefits of RFID chips in guns are evident, the technology is not without controversy. One of the major concerns of integrating RFID chips in guns revolves around privacy (Alferidah & Jhanjhi, 2020). Naturally, no one wants their personal or purchase data to be collected or shared by RFID readers or tags, or they may fear their tags can be cloned or tracked by unauthorized parties. This concern stems from the functionality of RFID-enabled devices. In this case, the frequencies can be transmitted over larger distances than their common counterparts, barcodes. Unlike barcode readers, one does not need to be able to see the chip to access information on it.
Moreover, the development and integration of RFID chips in guns is a costly endeavor, encompassing equipment costs, tag costs, software costs, and ongoing license costs. If an individual opts for a passive RFID system in their gun, they are required to cater to the costs of antennas and cabling. To get the location granularity preferred by most people, RFID technology requires a dense network of readers, which can prove to be expensive to acquire and install. In addition to the hardware costs, RFID reading would be useless without the appropriate software (Gladka et al., 2022). The high levels of complexity and specialization of the software account for the greatest portion of the cost. In this case, an integrated RFID chip in a gun could cost thousands of dollars to install and maintain. While the costs associated with active RFID licensing are generally integrated into the software package, passive RFID technologies often involve ongoing licensing expenses that contribute to support and software upgrades. These expenditures can be notably high.
Moreover, questions about technological malfunctions on a broader scale merit thorough examination. To begin with, RFID chips are highly susceptible to harsh weather conditions, such as humidity and temperature variations. The minimum transmitted power output that allows the tag signal of RFID-enabled guns to be acquired by the reader is measured in standard conditions. In this case, exposure to extreme temperature interferes with the readability of the RFID labels as well as the deterioration of the electronic identification system (Zradziński et al., 2019). In addition, metal surfaces or liquid products may block or absorb the RFID signals when traveling along. As microchips are very sensitive to nearby metallic surfaces, guns often containing metal parts may easily cause distortion and attenuation of the signal, leading to RFID malfunction. These technological defects can diminish the efficiency of RFID tracking. In case RFID chips fail to transfer or receive signals in the right way, it will be possible that the real-time tracking and monitoring facilities of this system are unable to work properly, leading to inaccuracies in the status and location of the gun.
Before the advent of RFID chips in guns, various technologies were employed for different purposes. Traditional guns relied on mechanical locks, serial numbers, magnetic strips, and barcodes as the primary safety features. Although these technologies were successful at preventing accidental discharges, they were limited in terms of real-time monitoring. Smart gun technologies served as the precursor of RFID chips. While not widely adopted, smart gun technology features such as biometric recognition ensure that only authorized can operate the firearm. It is worth noting that the integration of RFID chips signifies a paradigm shift in gun safety but does not render traditional firearms obsolete. RFID technology is intended to complement existing infrastructures, offering an additional layer of monitoring and control.
Socio-Cultural Influences on RFID Technology in Guns
Socio-cultural factors have a significant influence on scientific and technological innovations. In this case, the reception, perception, and adoption of RFID chips in guns are influenced by deep-rooted socio-cultural assumptions and biases surrounding gun ownership, safety, and regulation.
One crucial dimension involves the cultural attitudes towards firearms, which go a long way to shape how RFID technology is viewed. As a nation, the United States has a deep and enduring connection to guns to the extent that gun culture has been seamlessly integrated into the fabric of American society. Since the inception of the nation, firearms have remained a source of considerable pride for many Americans. Whether utilized for hunting, sport shooting, or personal defense, the right to bear arms is widely regarded as a cornerstone of individual freedom. Recent survey data indicates that at least two-thirds of Americans have experienced living in a household with a gun at some juncture in their lives. Furthermore, approximately seven in ten individuals, including 55% of those who have never personally owned a firearm, acknowledge having fired a gun at some point. Presently, three-in-ten U.S (Parker, 2017). adults assert ownership of a gun, with an additional 36% expressing openness to the idea of owning a firearm in the future despite not currently possessing one (Parker, 2017). These statistics suggest that the introduction of additional features in guns, such as RFID chips, may be accepted by those who view it as a safety measure against gun violence.
Simultaneously, the nation grapples with the profound impact of gun-related violence, fostering highly polarized debates around gun policy. The reality is that experiences with firearms are not universally positive: a substantial 44% of U.S. adults acknowledge knowing someone who has been shot, either accidentally or intentionally. Furthermore, about a quarter (23%) report instances where they or a family member felt threatened or intimidated by someone wielding a gun (Parker, 2017). Despite these challenges, there is a shared recognition that gun violence constitutes a significant issue in the U.S., with half of the population considering it a very substantial problem. Notably, gun owners and non-owners often hold differing perspectives on this matter, underscoring the deep divisions within American society. However, there is a notable consensus on certain restrictions, such as preventing individuals on federal watch lists and those with mental illnesses from purchasing firearms (Handley, 2022). Given the overarching emphasis on safe and responsible firearm ownership, the integration of RFID chips in guns is framed within the American gun culture as a tool aimed at enhancing safety.
When it comes to gun-oriented media, the Pew Research Center reveals some patterns in media consumption among gun owners, with the highest consumers of gun-oriented content being men. According to the study’s findings, 33% of female gun owners actively engage with videos or television programs centered around guns. In comparison, the percentage among male gun owners is 10% higher than that of their female counterparts (Jordan et al., 2020). Furthermore, gun owners, particularly males, exhibit a greater propensity to explore gun-related content online or indulge in gun-related video activities during their leisure time. Given the heightened involvement of male gun owners in gun-related pursuits, they tend to be more socially connected with fellow gun enthusiasts compared to their female counterparts (Crifasi et al., 2019). This heightened social connectivity implies that men may exhibit a greater preference for integrating RFID technology into guns. Moreover, the media’s portrayal of a safety-focused gun culture holds significant sway over public perceptions concerning the incorporation of RFID technology in firearms. Positive news coverage and favorable representations of gun cultures in various media outlets serve as a robust foundation for fostering acceptance and support for the integration of RFID chips in guns.
On the other hand, there is a long-standing controversy regarding human applications of RFID technology. Some people firmly believe that they could be potentially tracked by carrying an identifier unique to them. This presents information bias against the integration of RFID chips in guns. In light of this, the integration of RFID chips in guns can be framed as a tool to violate privacy. In fact, privacy advocates have protested against implantable RFID chips, warning potential of abuse. Other individuals argue that since RFID chips can serve as unique identifiers, they can be used by criminals and other nefarious actors to locate soldiers or critical infrastructure at a distance significantly greater than what manufacturers claim. Terrorists can leverage the fact that passive RFID tags can be read at ranges as far as twelve meters, and active tags can achieve ranges of 100 meters or more as a tool for interference (Want, 2022). In addition, multiple field tests have demonstrated that an RTID tag inside a gun can be detected from a far greater distance than the distance claimed by manufacturers. The privacy concerns and the possibility of RFID tags being detected by the enemy can shape the trajectory of RFID integration. These factors require privacy advocates, along with legal frameworks, to lobby for robust guidelines regarding the incorporation of RFID chips in firearms.
The Impact of RFID Chips in Guns on Society and Culture
The integration of RFID chips in guns presents a pivotal intersection between technological innovation and societal dynamics within the United States. As the integration unfolds, it sparks nuanced conversations around delicate balance between safety measures and individual rights.
To begin with, the integration of RFID chips in guns has a direct impact on security agencies and law enforcement. In the United States, the use of RFID chips in guns by the military can be traced back to the 1990s, after the first Gulf War showed a need to untangle vast supply chains of shipping containers (Gladka et al., 2022). Law enforcement agencies across the nation recognize that manual systems are prone to both inaccuracy and deliberate misuse. A long-term solution to such inconsistencies hinges on the integration of RFID chips in guns (Chen et al., 2021). RFID-enabled guns will offer law enforcement agencies an evidence-based strategy to improve safety by preventing unauthorized personnel from using firearms to perpetrate gun violence. To bolster the effectiveness of RFID technology in ensuring safety and promoting accountability, law enforcement agencies should establish databases that store information on registered firearms, owners, and relevant incidents. Database integration will allow for quick access to data during investigations, aiding in the identification and tracking of firearms. Regular technological progress is essential to ensuring that law enforcement agencies stay abreast of the latest advancements. Continuous technological improvements carry the potential to enhance the overall functionality and reliability of RFID technology in firearms.
Beyond law enforcement agencies, the integration of RFID chips in guns has a direct impact on individual firearm owners. RFID-enabled guns have more security features that allow them to fire only when activated by an authorized user (Jones et al., 2021). RFID systems commonly utilize proximity tokens, RFID chips, magnetic rings, or fingerprint recognition. In the realm of RFID-enabled firearms, there are additional smart safety devices, including biometric or RFID-activated accessories and safes (The Economist Newspaper, 2013). These innovations offer individual firearm owners enhanced security measures, effectively preventing accidental discharges, mitigating the risk of gun thefts, and addressing concerns related to unauthorized use by individuals not permitted to operate firearms.
Despite the safety mentioned above measures, other individual firearm owners express concerns about privacy. Their concerns stem from the fact that RFID tags and readers can easily be copied. RFID tags lack anti-counterfeit features, making them susceptible to forgery and providing potential thieves with an advantage in accessing armories and gun rooms. While RFID tags offer the advantage of enabling armorers to read multiple tags simultaneously, this efficiency becomes a disadvantage in terms of security (Alferidah & Jhanjhi, 2020). The ease with which RFID tags can be copied, even from outside a closed gun case, poses a significant risk. An illicit replacement of a genuine firearm with a fraudulently copied RFID tag would inaccurately register the firearm as still in inventory despite its removal. The simplicity of copying RFID tags also facilitates illegitimate gun ownership, allowing malicious actors to replicate tags and create a deceptive appearance that the weapons remain in the expected supply chain. To address these concerns, conducting regular Privacy Impact Assessments (PIA) emerges as a proactive measure. These assessments systematically evaluate the privacy implications of counterfeiting RFID tags in guns. By identifying potential risks or vulnerabilities, PIAs enable the implementation of corrective measures to enhance the security and integrity of firearm inventory management systems.
Conclusion
The case study on RFID chips in guns serves as a focal point for applying theoretical concepts learned throughout the course. Upon activation, an RFID-enabled firearm emits radio waves to power nearby RFID tags. These tags subsequently transmit their distinctive identification information back to the RFID firearm. The RFID firearm captures and processes this data, extracting details such as product information, inventory status, or location. In light of the escalating number of firearms in circulation and the attendant risks of misuse, the integration of RFID chips in guns emerges as an innovative solution to elevate firearm management and fortify safety measures. By enhancing security, accountability, and operational efficiency, RFID systems can play a crucial role in promoting responsible and secure firearm management.
The socio-cultural dimensions surrounding the adoption of RFID technology in guns reveal deep-seated attitudes and biases within American gun culture. The examination of media consumption patterns among gun owners, the polarized debates on gun policy, and the historical significance of firearms in American society contribute to a comprehensive understanding of how RFID technology is received and perceived. In addition, the impact of RFID chips on guns on society and culture is profound. It not only influences law enforcement and individual gun owners but also sparks debates around the delicate balance between safety measures and individual rights. The integration of RFID technology in firearms offers potential solutions to gun-related violence, providing law enforcement with evidence-based strategies and individual gun owners with enhanced security features. However, concerns about privacy, potential counterfeiting, and technological malfunctions present challenges that require careful consideration. In the ever-evolving landscape of technology, it is imperative for stakeholders to collaborate effectively, addressing challenges and unlocking the complete potential of RFID to advance public safety and foster responsible gun ownership.
References
Zradziński, P., Karpowicz, J., Gryz, K., & Ramos, V. (2019). An evaluation of electromagnetic exposure while using ultra-high frequency radiofrequency identification (UHF RFID) guns. Sensors, 20(1), 202. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20010202
Duroc, Y. (2022). From identification to sensing: RFID is one of the key technologies in the IoT field. Sensors, 22(19), 7523. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22197523
Crifasi, C. K., O’Dwyer, J. K., McGinty, E. E., Webster, D. W., & Barry, C. L. (2019). The desirability of personalized guns among current gun owners. American journal of preventive medicine, 57(2), 191-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2019.02.024
Luo, C., Gil, I., & Fernández-García, R. (2020). Wearable textile UHF-RFID sensors: A systematic review. Materials, 13(15), 3292. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13153292
Su, L., Vélez, P., Casacuberta, P., Muñoz-Enano, J., Gil-Barba, M., & Martín, F. (2023). Reflective-mode phase-variation submersible sensor for liquid characterization. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2023.3308228
Handley, R. (2022), September 28). How RFID technology can reduce gun violence. Campus Safety Magazine. https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/news/how-rfid-technology-can-reduce-gun-violence/#:~:text=As%20he%20explains%2C%20such%20guns,access%20to%20somebody%20else’s%20gun.%E2%80%9D
Keane, L. (2023, February 9). Maryland lawmakers want sci-fi technology to track your guns in real-time. NSSF. https://www.nssf.org/articles/maryland-lawmakers-want-sci-fi-technology-to-track-your-guns-in-real-time/
The Economist Newspaper. (2013). Kill switches and safety catches. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2013/11/28/kill-switches-and-safety-catches
Parker, K. (2017, June 22). America’s complex relationship with guns. Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/#:~:text=Many%20American%20gun%20owners%20exist,of%20their%20friends%20own%20guns
Alferidah, D. K., & Jhanjhi, N. Z. (2020). A review on security and privacy issues and challenges in internet of things. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security IJCSNS, 20(4), 263-286. https://expert.taylors.edu.my/file/rems/publication/109566_7213_1.pdf
Chen, C. L., Chiang, M. L., Deng, Y. Y., Weng, W., Wang, K., & Liu, C. C. (2021). A traceable firearm management system based on blockchain and IoT technology. Symmetry, 13(3), 439. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13030439
Gladka, M., Kuchansky, A., Kostikov, M., & Lisnevskyi, R. (2022). A Model of the Application of IoT Devices Based on RFID to Ensure the Safety of the Military and Civilian Population under War Conditions. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3347/Paper_23.pdf
Griffiths, S. (2014, January 2). Could guns soon be fitted with computers? Chips would prevent anyone but the owner from firing the weapon. Daily Mail Online. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2532634/Could-guns-soon-fitted-computers-Chips-prevent-owner-firing-weapon.html
Jones, E., Tanveer, A. J., Ohakim, C., Castillo, J. M., Kothari, K., & Muthukumar, S. (2021). Utilizing Internet of things [IOT] Technologies to prevent Mass gun related Shootings. International Supply Chain Technology Journal, 7(10). https://isctj.com/index.php/isctj/article/view/225
Want, R. (2022). RFID explained: A primer on radio frequency identification technologies. Springer Nature.
Jordan, L., Kalin, J., & Dabrowski, C. (2020). Characteristics of gun advertisements on social media: systematic search and content analysis of Twitter and YouTube posts. Journal of medical Internet research, 22(3), e15736. https://www.jmir.org/2020/3/e15736
write