There are many articulate inventories of undesirable results from privacy-invading technologies; one can bemoan the prospect that a private investigator or nosy neighbor could point a dish at someone’s house and immediately inventory all the RFIDed products (and pets and people) inside. Innocent people as well as the guilty could be located in a heartbeat by a government already enamored with ankle bracelets for those under house arrest. Objections such as those cause refinements in the systems—an element in RFID standards that supposes one might want to disable them—or even slight delays in their adoption. Wal-Mart, which had been among the first to declare its intention to roll out RFIDs, just canceled a joint test of them with Gillette in a Boston-area retail store. Instead, Wal-Mart is installing RFID systems in warehouses and distribution centers; retail stores can follow later.

But, like most privacy-related objections to anything, they will attenuate with time if the case for convenience and safety can be made. I don’t regret the RFID in my dog, and by the time I have children, I likely won’t regret RFIDing them either—indeed, it’ll most likely be as routine and responsible a part of the delivery process as cutting the umbilical cord. It will be an act that replaces a physical cord with a much thicker virtual tether, both a conduit to and from the limitless expanse of cyberspace, and a chain anchoring one to it.