This article, or at least many of the sources cited, seems to be conflating two very different things. We already have various kinds of medical technology that

This article, or at least many of the sources cited, seems to be conflating two very different things. We already have various kinds of medical technology that are implanted; pacemakers, for example. Those are mostly uncontroversial because they have obvious advantages for patients and because of the general trust we put in the medical profession to act in the patient's interest. This seems to be entirely different situation to an employer putting their own chip into employees. I didn't see a single benefit in the article that would come anywhere near justifying such an invasive and potentially harmful procedure. We already have instant payments with NFC devices, touch cards to open doors and so on. What's the big advantage of embedding such things within the human body? I'm also quite sceptical about the idea that the younger generation who have grown up as digital natives will find this more acceptable. That younger generation are often a lot wiser than their parents and grandparents about staying safe online; for example, many of them casually discard social media accounts and move around, and they routinely give false details and use pseudonyms. Older generations might have used their real name and still have the same Facebook account 10 years later, but try finding any 20 year old who does that. It's true that digital natives still put up with a lot of intrusion for convenience, but IME only in cases where they feel they have no choice without giving up a big part of their lives. Nothing in the article here comes anywhere near that category, and given the simple idea and obvious alternatives, it's hard to see how that is going to change any time soon.