GPS Tracking and Microchip Implants in Children: A Sociological View
This paper examines the sociological impact of GPS tracking devices and microchip implants on children in 21st-century American society. Drawing on technological, legal, cultural, and ethical dimensions, it evaluates both pro and con arguments surrounding the use of locator chips in minors. Key topics include child safety statistics, parental responsibility, children's social rights, the "Big Brother" surveillance concern, and the broader question of what implanting tracking devices says about how society defines itself. The paper ultimately argues that while the technology exists, its sociological costs — particularly regarding privacy, control, and civil liberties — outweigh the benefits for the vast majority of children.
- Introduction to GPS Tracking in Children: Background on GPS, microchip technology, and early use
- The Controversy: Child Safety and Technological Solutions: Child safety statistics and debate over tracking methods
- Arguments in Favor of GPS Tracking: Safety, crime prevention, and parental responsibility arguments
- Arguments Against GPS Tracking: Limited scope of problem, children's rights, chip removal
- Society, Children, and the Right to Privacy: Social obligations, privacy rights, historical precedents
- Future Ramifications and Big Brother Concerns: Government surveillance, social control theory, medical risks
- Conclusions: Just Because We Can, Should We?: Alternatives, governance, normative questions about technology use
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper presents a balanced structure, dedicating separate sections to pro and con arguments before synthesizing them into a broader sociological and ethical analysis.
- It grounds its claims in real-world data — noting that most child abductions are committed by family members — which productively challenges the core safety rationale for GPS implants.
- The paper connects individual-level concerns (parental control, child rights) to macro-level sociological issues (government surveillance, civil liberties), giving the argument both depth and breadth.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses a utilitarian ethical lens to evaluate policy — asking not simply whether GPS tracking is possible, but whether it produces a net benefit for society. This framework is applied explicitly when the author questions what implanting a chip in a human being signals about society's values and its definition of personhood.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a classic problem–argument–synthesis structure across seven sections: an introduction establishing technological background, a controversy section presenting the problem, separate pro and con argument sections, a society-centered analysis of rights and precedents, a forward-looking section on surveillance and control theory, and a conclusion posing normative questions about governance and alternatives.
Introduction to GPS Tracking in Children
The use of GPS tracking devices for children would have an overall negative sociological impact in American society in the 21st century. To understand why, it is necessary to first examine the technology itself, its existing applications, and the cultural context in which it is being proposed for use on minors.
GPS tracking technology has evolved significantly over recent decades, moving from military and navigation applications into consumer products used for fleet management, personal navigation, and even pet monitoring. Human microchip implants are identifying circuits or chips that may serve two primary functions: identification and tracking. Both functions have been available for some time in pets, but there are a number of cultural, legal, and sociological dimensions to the use of these devices in humans — particularly children — that remain deeply controversial.
As early as 2002, companies were experimenting with human implants used for identification and the storage of medical information. The logic offered was straightforward: if critical health information could be stored and retrieved even when a patient was unconscious, it could contribute to saving lives (Health-care chips, 2006). Applied Digital Solutions conducted tests for roughly eight to ten years but had yet to bring a GPS tracking device for humans to market (Digital Angel, 2013).
The issue of GPS tracking in children, however, is about more than technology. The technology is available and the applications are ready — but is the market, and more importantly, is society ready for this application? As with any tool, there are positives and negatives depending on use. Proponents believe that GPS locators would allow parents to have better awareness of their child's whereabouts, and that in the event of a criminal act, it would be easier for police to locate the child. Opponents see it as part of a larger and more troubling picture — a "Big Brother" society in which the chip never goes away, but instead becomes a mechanism for governments to track all citizens: their behaviors, spending habits, and geographical location (Gossett, 2003; Tennant, 2010).
The Controversy: Child Safety and Technological Solutions
The cultural and sociological implications of GPS tracking devices blur into the ethical and moral — touching on rights, responsibilities, fear, need, and control (Parents Look, 2002). Much of the preliminary data on this issue is inconclusive. Studies show that of the thousands of children abducted worldwide, only a small percentage are abducted or harmed by someone outside the family — making the safety argument for GPS implants somewhat less compelling than proponents suggest (Alphonse, 2010).
This raises an important question about the nature of the proposed solution. If the technology is meant to protect children from strangers, but the statistical reality is that most harm comes from within the family unit, then the device may not address the actual problem. Furthermore, one must ask: why does the tracking device need to be implanted at all? Wearable devices — such as watches, pendants, or items sewn into clothing — can achieve similar tracking results without the medical and ethical complications of a subcutaneous implant. The implant argument, therefore, may be driven less by practical necessity than by commercial interest or an ideological desire for permanent, irremovable surveillance.
There is also the matter of how "safety" is defined and who defines it. Parents seeking peace of mind may define safety in terms of knowing their child's location at all times. Civil libertarians and sociologists, by contrast, may define safety to include freedom from surveillance, autonomy, and the development of independent identity — all of which could be undermined by constant tracking.
Arguments in Favor of GPS Tracking
Supporters of GPS tracking devices for children advance several arguments. The most prominent is that such devices would create a safer environment for children. In a society where news coverage of child abductions and exploitation is pervasive, many parents feel acute anxiety about their children's safety. A GPS locator would allow parents to verify their child's location at any time, providing reassurance and potentially enabling faster emergency response in crisis situations.
A second argument is that GPS tracking may serve as a deterrent to crime. If potential abductors know that children carry locators, they may be less likely to target them. In this sense, the technology functions similarly to home security systems or surveillance cameras — as a visible or known deterrent that shifts criminal calculus.
Proponents also argue from the standpoint of parental responsibility. Parents are legally and morally responsible for the welfare of their minor children. If a technology exists that can help fulfill that responsibility, the argument goes, parents have both the right and the duty to use it. Some advocates further note that parents could retain control over who has access to the tracking information, limiting its use to designated caregivers and law enforcement.
Finally, supporters point to the precedent established by GPS monitoring of convicted offenders and the use of tracking technology in high-risk contexts. If society accepts tracking in those cases, they argue, applying it to vulnerable children is a natural and protective extension of the same logic.
References
Alphonse, L. (2010, June). Would you implant a microchip in your child? Boston.com.
Digital Angel, Inc. (2013). Company information. Retrieved from
Gossett, S. (2003, May). GPS implant makes debut. WND.com.
Health care chips could get under your skin. (2006, June). Phys.org.
Parents look to microchip children. (2002, September). CNN.com/World.
Tennant, D. (2010, March). Implanting locator chips in kids: The sooner, the better. IT Business Edge.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.