>>455211I think you should focus on getting phones with better privacy.
Putting chips into people is probably what they would like to do, but if they do that people will properly freak out, because that's breaking the body boundary. It's impossible to hide it, because even a standard laboratory microscope could detect tiny chips. People put human tissue samples and blood samples under microscopes on a vast scale.
The chips you got in your personal computer if it's a recent model have electronic elements with features between 5 and 50 atoms. That's actually very close to the limits of current physics. I doubt if there is super-secret physics research, because they usually need giant physics experiments for that. Those are very expensive and so big that secrecy is out of the question. So the chips you get in consumer electronics are pretty close to what's possible.
IMHO tiny chips would be very simple devices. Nano-bots are possible but would have very limited abilities. At the moment we haven't figured out how to power and control them unless there is a large external power supply and controller. Sending signals with tiny antennas is really energy inefficient, we're talking really short range, like you have to be almost touching it to pick up a signal.
I don't know if future tech can get smaller and make nano chips practical. But if you are worried about it, now would be the time to get it outlawed, that will make it harder to do in the future and will buy us at least some time.
If you can build a machine with features smaller than an atom, you can make it release energy in unfathomably large quantities and make matter change it's physical properties. If you got that level of scifi tech there's more interesting things to do than chipping people.
So again focus on improving phone privacy.