Shivangi Sharma, Chloe Lew, Talisa Gordon David & Sarah A Q A S Alenezi

For this assessment we considered several options in regards to making our video. We considered making a video about an online stalker, tracking, tracing an individual female’s every move. Websites that she frequently uses, such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and online shopping. Then we would see this individual clicking through to her recent geotagged location ultimately tracking her down to her literal, physical location leading to potential criminal act or behavior. Another option we considered was to film again involved stalker both on and offline – we thought it would be captivating if we were to film this using close ups techniques on the stalkers hands and fingers on the keyboard, we would have filmed this in black and white, at night time adding extra effect. Our third idea for a potential film consisted again of a stalker – creating a fake Facebook profile ultimately ‘catfishing’ young females and males. Moreover, we decided to make a video about human microchipping as we deemed it more original and interesting.


The process in which we took in order to prepare the video started with the group collaborating online and brainstorming using software such as Samepage while audio calling on Skype. After many of these session discussing potential script ideas we settled on human microchipping delving into the positives and negatives regarding this issue. Each member of the group was allocated a task to research human microchipping and had to find both positive and negative arguments. We then presented our findings to each other over Skype and set a time to write the script using Google Docs. We collectively wrote the script and chose to deliver it as a documentary trailer introduced by a news report about the issue of human microchipping. Further we discussed locations to film, potential costumes, lighting and choose who would film, how we would film as well as dividing up the tedious task of editing. We then decided which team member would play which character – each member then had to proof read their script and we set out on campus to film.


To film the video, we used an IPhone 7, we uploaded the footage onto one computer and then onto DropBox where we had created a group (“Team”) which each member had access too. To edit the video, we used Final Cut Pro, then exported the video to QuickTime and uploaded it to YouTube then embedding it into our individual blogs.

The underlying message of our video aims to show views both the positives and negative arguments regarding the new found issue of human microchipping. Microchipping has been around for centuries – however most commonly microchipping is known to be something one does to a pet (dogs / cats). However, in today’s society, humans are beginning to get microchipped for health reasons but also for reasons of convenience. One is able to have updated health records embedded under their skin – when there is a matter of emergency one’s medical records are readily available. Moreover, there are also examples of convenience. These include reasons such as locking and unlocking one’s house and car doors. Moreover, microchipped individuals are also able to turn their lights on and off with the swipe of a hand. Ultimately, individual are able to live a life wallet and house key free.


However, there are many negative reasons too. Firstly, microchipped individuals are known to having a higher risk to having their personal and private information hacked and traced. Moreover, this makes individuals feel as though they are at risk. Individuals personal data is constantly being tracked (Smith, C 2008) and watched. Additionally, a microchip is not a natural part of the human body – therefore electrical hazards can occur – moreover the specific microchip inserted is MRI incapable – making potential cases of emergency risky. Majority of implantable microchips are unencrypted, hence they are extremely vulnerable to being scammed (Smith, C 2008).


Throughout this assessment we divided up each task – each group member contributed towards planning and brainstorming about the script. Collectively we decided that human microchipping deemed more interesting and original. Each group member conducted lengthy research into both the positives and negatives cases of human microchipping. Next we meet up on campus to film each part, one member of the group would hold up the script, another making sure the area remained quiet and another filming. The footage was then uploaded to our teams DropBox where each member had access to. Each member was responsible for downloading and editing a different scene – posting the updated version back onto DropBox where each edited version was compiled for one team member to perform a final edit. As a group we set deadlines for each component e.g. – script, filming, editing to be due. This helped to keep us on track in order to submit the final product on time.


Lobo Loco, ‘Can’t Let Her Go’http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Lobo_Loco/ Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

Gillespie, I. (2014). Human microchipping: I’ve got you under my skin. [online] The Sydney Morning Herald. Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/humanmicrochipping-ive-got-you-under-my-skin-20140416-zqvho.html [Accessed 19 Sep. 2016].

Smith, C., 2008. Human microchip implantation. Journal of technology management & innovation, 3(3), pp.151-160.