IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2017 - 50

November 2015. The Australian tags contain personal
information but add a country identifier and only use
initials and last name.
Defense personnel from most countries have either
two tags, or a tag that can be broken into two. In the
case of death, one tag stays with the body and the other
is used to record the fatality.

Australian Military Law

Constitution and its creation was inconsistent with the
power vested in the Governor-General by the Constitution. As a consequence, the associated provisions of the
Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) were declared
invalid and replacement legislation was enacted as the
Military Justice (Interim Measures) Act (No 2) 2009
(Cth). The High Court considered these interim measures (which are still in effect) and found that they were
valid in Nicholas v The Commonwealth [2011] HCA 29.

Defence Force Discipline Act 1982

Risks

Australia's military law is a combination of general law
(both statute law and common law) with specific obligations created under the Defence Force Discipline
Act 1982 (Cth). This legislation relevantly provides (in
section 15F) that: a person who is a defense member
commits an offense if the person is under orders to
prepare for, or to carry out, operations against the
enemy and the person does not use his or her utmost
exertions to carry those orders into effect. The maximum punishment for this offense is imprisonment for
15 years.
Under section 3, an order includes: a general order;
and a command given to a member of the defense force
by a superior officer.
The requirement to wear dog tags is a general order.
Being vaccinated in accordance with military recommendations falls under a general order (with an exception for Anthrax vaccination, in common with the U.S.).
It is also likely that any order for personnel to be
implanted with an RFID device will be a general one,
rather than a command given by a superior officer. This
influences the discussion on risk set out below. If there
is no choice about the implantation, then the risk analysis is, necessarily, one from the perspective of the
defense force.

The Australian High Court
The highest court in Australia is the Australian High
Court and it has considered a number of issues associated with the limitations and scope of the Defence Force
Discipline Act 1982 (Cth). The cases set out here identify the scope of the legislation and the validity of a general order in relation to RFID implants. In Re Colonel Aird;
Ex parte Alpert [2004] HCA 44, the Australian High
Court affirmed that the court martial system has effect
in Australia and is consistent with the separation of powers provided in the Australian Constitution. In White v
Director of Military Prosecutions [2007] HCA 29, the
High Court found that this system could also apply extraterritorially to Australian military personnel. However, in
Lane v Morrison [2009] HCA 29, the High Court found
that the proposed creation of the Australian Military
Court was beyond the scope the relevant section of the

Military Risks and Issues
One of the greatest potential risks arising in a tactical
environment is that RFID devices are "illuminated" by
an enemy in order to locate forces. This is most likely to
be an issue for special forces and for ground forces in
unconventional warfare such as guerrilla warfare or
insurgency. The potential would be for a series of "reader" devices to be used to detect opposing forces in a
form of electronic "tripwire." However, this would also
lead to the potential for subterfuge by sending appropriately dimensioned (number and spread) device arrays to
trigger the tripwire. An alternative would be to screen
the RFID device in certain battlefield deployments. A
simple conductive shield would be sufficient to limit the
potential for unwanted illumination.
This illumination risk can also be minimized by
choosing a frequency for the implant. The low frequency
devices used to identify domestic animals require the
reader to be within a few centimeters of the surface of
the skin. Although this technology choice also restricts
the use of the implant to identification, this compromise
might be an appropriate one.

Vaccinations in Australia
One issue that impacts the analysis of risk in the Australian context is the prevailing view of vaccinations. The
Australian Federal government has implemented a "no
jab no pay" policy. The effect of this is that any claims
for social security benefits or rebates can only be made
to families where children have been fully vaccinated.
Earlier exemptions for conscientious objection to
immunization and for Christian Scientists (Church of
Christ, Scientists) have been removed. The only exemption is if a parent can show that there is a medical reason for an exemption. State Governments generally
reserve the right to exclude children from school if they
are not fully vaccinated and exercise that right when
there are specific illnesses in any particular school.
In this context, requiring a person to have a vaccination is, of itself, a normal social expectation. In a military
context, if the risks of RFID implants are comparable to
the risk of a vaccination, then it would be difficult

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine

∕

march 2017

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2017