The future of prison surveillance--Transdermal microchips

What are transdermal microchips?

Transdermal microchips are small devices that can be implanted under the skin. They are designed to track movement, monitor health and send automatic alerts in real time, reported Correction1. They use RFID and biometric sensors to provide constant feedback without relying on manual monitoring. Even though this technology is still new to correctional settings, similar technologies are already being used in high-security environments, military operations and medical monitoring. If implemented in prisons, transdermal microchips could change the way facilities track inmates due to their ability to provide instant location updates, detect medical emergencies before they escalate, and reduce the risk of escapes by eliminating blind spots in supervision.

The debate over transdermal microchips as a correctional tool has sparked strong opinions from legal scholars, policymakers, correctional leaders and civil rights advocates, with compelling arguments both in support of and objecting to their use.

Supporters: Why we need microchips

Legal researcher James Boezi argues that transdermal microchips represent the only truly tamper-proof method of inmate tracking. Unlike RFID bracelets or GPS devices, microchips cannot be removed or disabled by the wearer and enable real-time location monitoring without risk of manipulation.

David P. Mulholland, Director of Correctional Technology at the National Institute of Justice, emphasizes that the technology goes beyond security. “Microchips offer an unparalleled ability to monitor movement, detect medical distress and even track contraband circulation,” he states. “This is not just about security. It’s about modernizing how we manage corrections.”

Former warden and security consultant Michael Johnson reinforces this point, noting that correctional systems spend millions of dollars on escape manhunts. “Imagine if, instead, we had immediate, pinpoint location data,” he says. “The cost savings and public safety benefits are undeniable.”

Critics: Ethical, legal and operational concerns

Even with the advantages of transdermal microchips, issues of privacy and civil rights remain. According to, legal expert on privacy rights Emma Kerrison, “The fundamental problem with implanting microchips in inmates is consent. Even convicted offenders maintain bodily autonomy under the Eighth Amendment. This could set a dangerous precedent for forced state surveillance.” In the Duke Law & Technology Review, John Pishko says, “E-carceration is the next frontier of mass surveillance. Microchip tracking raises serious concerns about mission creep, what starts as a security measure in prisons could become widespread government tracking beyond correctional facilities.”

Sentencing Law and Policy Expert Alex Berman says, “There are too many unknowns. Will the data be secure? Will it be used only for location tracking, or will it expand to monitoring inmates’ thoughts, emotions, and medical conditions without consent?”

Is this the most effective technology for corrections?

Despite the use of RFID tags, GPS tracking and biometric systems, escapes still happen, response times are slow and security gaps exist. The question isn’t just whether we need better tracking technology, it’s whether transdermal microchips are the best option for correctional facilities today.

Right now, some prisons use RFID bands, GPS ankle monitors and biometric scanners, but all have flaws:

RFID tracking only works in designated areas and can be blocked by walls and interference.

GPS ankle monitors need constant power, and if batteries die or signals drop, tracking stops.

Biometric scanners require inmates to pass through checkpoints, so they don’t track movement in real time.

Transdermal microchips can fix these issues. Unlike external devices, they can’t be removed, lost, or blocked, and they provide live tracking, instantly alerting officers if an inmate moves into an unauthorized area. But just because it’s the most advanced option doesn’t mean it’s the right choice for every facility. Introducing microchip tracking would require a major investment in software, training and cybersecurity. But so do escapes, delayed medical responses and preventable in-custody deaths, and those add up fast.

Every time an inmate escapes, agencies are forced to put millions into search operations, emergency response teams and legal expenses. A single escape, like the 2015 Clinton Correctional Facility breakout, cost New York taxpayers $23 million in just 23 days. And with over 2,200 reported escapes from U.S. prisons in a single year, it’s clear these incidents aren’t just rare, one-off occurrences.

Beyond escapes, delayed medical responses also contribute significantly to correctional system costs. In emergencies such as heart attacks, overdoses, or suicide attempts, every second is critical. In California, the use of telepsychiatry saved the Department of Corrections approximately $850 per inmate in transportation costs, totaling $4 million in savings. If that level of efficiency can be achieved through virtual care alone, the potential impact of real-time biometric alerts is even greater.

Transdermal microchips could not only accelerate medical response times, but also help prevent costly emergency hospitalizations, reduce liability exposure, and ultimately save lives. With appropriate policies and oversight, this technology could also deliver instant security alerts and eliminate manual errors in inmate tracking and medical documentation.

Among the most significant advantages of transdermal microchips are:

1. Instant alerts when inmates enter unauthorized areas

Even though correctional officers conduct headcounts and monitor surveillance feeds, the human eye has limitations — especially during high-stress periods. Microchip technology can enhance institutional safety by providing real-time alerts when inmates move into unauthorized areas, enabling immediate staff response and preventing potential escapes.

This capability is already in use in select facilities. For example, Minnesota’s Lino Lakes facility implemented an RFID tracking system to monitor inmate movement and alert staff when a designated boundary was breached. This system helped reduce escape attempts and improved overall response times. Broader studies on electronic monitoring show that automated alerts significantly reduce escape rates by notifying staff in real time rather than relying on delayed manual checks.

2. Real-time health monitoring for medical emergencies

Life-threatening conditions in custody often emerge without warning. Whether it’s cardiac arrest, overdose, or self-harm, the timing of the response can determine the outcome. Real-time biometric monitoring through transdermal microchips can continuously track vital signs and notify medical staff the moment anomalies occur.

A 2025 study found that wearable biometric devices enabled earlier intervention, resulting in fewer in-custody deaths due to preventable medical issues. The U.S. Department of Justice has also promoted real-time health tracking in correctional settings as a critical tool for reducing avoidable fatalities.

3. Eliminating human error in inmate record-keeping

One of the most persistent challenges in corrections is the potential for human error in logging inmate activity, including counts, medical checks and security rounds. Many facilities still rely on paper logs, which are susceptible to mistakes, falsification, or omission.

Transdermal microchips could automate these functions, logging inmate movements in real time, linking alerts to actual behavior, and generating verifiable records of compliance. Some facilities have already begun this shift. Guard1’s Mobile RFID Inmate Tracking System, for example, replaces manual logs with digital tracking and has improved staff accountability while reducing workload.

4. Cybersecurity and privacy safeguards

The effectiveness of any monitoring technology hinges not just on its capability but on how securely the data is handled. The American Civil Liberties Union has warned that without strong privacy safeguards, biometric tracking could lead to surveillance overreach and abuse.

To mitigate these risks, correctional agencies must adopt strict cybersecurity protocols. These include encrypting all location and biometric data, restricting access to authorized personnel only, and ensuring post-release data is not retained or used beyond incarceration.

5. Alternative options for inmates who refuse microchips

Some inmates may object to microchip implantation on religious, medical, or personal grounds. To avoid legal and ethical violations, facilities must offer viable alternatives, such as wearable RFID devices or smart uniforms.

A documented opt-out process should be in place to protect the rights of objecting individuals, and refusal to comply should not affect parole or sentencing outcomes. By maintaining flexibility, agencies can ensure compliance while respecting individual rights.

How to get there and what can be done

Even with the clear operational and safety benefits of transdermal microchips, transitioning to this technology will require time, oversight, and strategic planning. Correctional institutions must move deliberately, addressing legal, ethical and infrastructure challenges through phased implementation.

1. Conduct a pilot program in a high-risk facility

Before adopting the technology systemwide, agencies should test microchip tracking in a controlled environment to assess real-world effectiveness, staff training needs, and system reliability. One such example is a U.S. Navy study in a military brig that successfully used biometric tracking — including fingerprint and iris scans — though it required careful protocol development and staff training.

2. Establish clear regulations for data collection and inmate consent

As biometric systems expand, so do concerns over data use and consent. Regulatory frameworks must address how personal information is gathered, stored, and used. A lack of safeguards, as seen in South Africa’s correctional fingerprint scanning program, can spark controversy and legal challenges.

3. Implement strong cybersecurity and data protection

Tracking sensitive biometric and location data creates inherent cybersecurity risks. Agencies must adopt systems with encryption, multi-layered access controls, and strict protocols modeled after systems like the FBI’s Next Generation Identification platform, which protects vast amounts of sensitive information.

4. Collaborate with legal experts and civil rights organizations

A major misstep in technology implementation is excluding key stakeholders. In the U.S., GPS parolee tracking programs faced legal backlash because they were deployed without civil rights consultation, resulting in lawsuits over privacy violations.

5. Invest in secure infrastructure and backup systems

Reliability is essential. A case from Hong Kong’s Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution demonstrated that power disruptions can compromise biometric systems, emphasizing the need for backup power and redundant safeguards.

6. Establish an independent ethics committee for oversight

Oversight is critical to maintaining public trust. The United Kingdom’s Biometric and Forensics Ethics Group (BFEG) offers a strong model for independent review bodies that monitor compliance and guide responsible use.

Would authorities accept it?

The path to implementation will face internal and external resistance. Some correctional officers worry that automation may displace staff or devalue their roles. Civil rights advocates argue that forced implantation violates the Eighth Amendment.

Emma Kerrison, a privacy law expert, warns: “The biggest problem with microchip implants is consent. Even convicted offenders still have bodily autonomy under the Eighth Amendment. This could set a dangerous precedent for government tracking.”

Still, others see it as a logical evolution in public safety. As James Boezi notes, “Microchips are the only truly tamper-proof tracking system. Unlike ankle monitors or RFID bracelets, they cannot be removed or disabled. They allow real-time location tracking without risk of manipulation.”

Ultimately, the success of any implementation will depend on how the technology is introduced, managed, and regulated.

Conclusion

Current prison tracking methods are failing. Manual headcounts remain vulnerable to human error, and even today’s electronic systems have critical limitations that allow escapes to occur. The debate over transdermal microchips reflects broader tensions in the field — between advocates for modernization and those concerned about privacy and civil liberties. Yet the reality is clear: traditional security measures are no longer sufficient. Correctional facilities must explore new, technology-driven solutions to enhance safety, prevent escapes, and protect the public.

Transdermal microchips offer one such solution. By enabling real-time tracking, automating alerts, and monitoring inmate health, they have the potential to close long-standing gaps in institutional security. But implementing this technology will require more than just infrastructure — it will demand a coordinated strategy involving correctional leaders, legislators, privacy experts, and cybersecurity professionals. Regulations, ethical guardrails, and robust oversight must be in place from the outset.

The 2035 scenario illustrates what’s possible. A breach that once led to a multi-agency manhunt now ends in minutes because officers are alerted immediately. No guesswork. No delay. This isn’t just a leap in efficiency — it’s a fundamental shift in how correctional institutions operate.

Privacy concerns remain valid, and consent must be part of the conversation. But by establishing transparent policies and third-party oversight, correctional leaders have an opportunity to balance operational security with respect for individual rights. The future of effective corrections lies in the smart adoption of technology — designed not to replace the human element, but to reinforce it where the risks are greatest.

To read more CLICK HERE