Are microchip implants for offenders inevitable?

Among lots and lots of good new stuff at Corrections Sentencing is a link to this AP story from Oklahoma:

Legislation that would authorize microchip implants in people convicted of violent crimes was sent back to a committee yesterday.  This after state House members questioned whether the proposal would violate constitutional civil liberties. 

The measure, approved by the Senate, authorizes microchip implants for persons convicted of one or more of 19 violent offenses who have to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence.  The tiny electronic implants are commonly used to keep track of pets and livestock, but several House members questioned whether their forced use in people would be unconstitutionally invasive.

As highlighted in this article, a West Palm Beach Alzheimer’s care center is talking about placing microchips into its patients; and this article notes that a “deputy with the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office has been implanted with a microchip that will give emergency doctors access to his medical information.” 

I would wager it is only a matter of time before these kinds of technocorrections really take off.

UPDATE:  A very helpful reader pointed me to this on-point recent article in one of Ohio State’s own journals about human tracking technology.  The article is by William Herbert and is entitled “No Direction Home: Will The Law Keep Pace With Human Tracking Technology to Protect Individual Privacy and Stop Geoslavery?”  Here is the abstract:

Increasingly, public and private employers are utilizing human tracking devices to monitor employee movement and conduct.  Due to the propensity of American labor law to give greater weight to employer property interests over most employee privacy expectations, there are currently few limitations on the use of human tracking in employment.  The scope and nature of current legal principles regarding individual privacy are not sufficient to respond to the rapid development and use of human tracking technology.  The academic use of the phrase geoslavery to describe the abusive use of such technology underscores its power.  This article examines the use of such technology under current federal and state law and suggests potential means for developing greater legal protections against the abusive use of the technology and the intrusion into personal privacy.