Exploring the Internet of Bodies
You've heard the term Internet of Things, where inanimate objects can be connected
to the internet and each other. But in 2016, academic and
author Dr. Andrea Matwyshyn took it one step further,
coining the term Internet of Bodies, or IoB.
She describes it as a network of human bodies whose integrity and
functionality rely, at least in part, on the internet and related
technologies, such as artificial intelligence.
That might sound far-fetched, but if you have one of these, you're already
part of the IoB world. There are three categories of
IoB based on the device's level of integration.
The first generation is external,
things like smart watches or rings, which use sensors to track our steps and
heart rate, or smart glasses, which function as cameras, headphones, and
monitors.
The second generation is internal.
These are devices you ingest or have implanted.
Think of pacemakers with digital implants, smart prosthetics
hardwired into patients' nerves and muscles, or even digital pills
that transmit medical data after being ingested.
Finally, there's the third generation.
These devices completely merge with the body while maintaining a
real-time connection to an external machine and the internet.
One of the most notable companies in this space is Elon Musk's Neuralink, which is
developing a brain computer interface, or BCI, called
The Link. The coin-sized chip is implanted under the skull,
where it can read a person's brain signals and allow them to control an
external machine.
I had to use, like, a mouth stick and stuff,
but now it's all being done with my
brain.
Neuralink's first test subject, who was paralyzed from the shoulders down,
used the device to play chess on his laptop, although a few weeks later,
Neuralink reported some malfunctioning.
Proponents of IoB devices say the benefits are clear.
They'll improve body cognition and function, improve healthcare,
and allow
for significant cost savings for people and corporations.
But where some see benefits, others see risks.
Even the original article coining the term warned of the technology's
flaws. For one, data protection will be paramount.
Many of these devices will be able to track, record, and store
personal information. Critics argue that if governments
and companies got their
hands on this data, they could use it to spy on citizens
or turn them
into revenue streams. There are also concerns around dependency,
addiction, and personal safety. Former US Vice President
Dick Cheney, for example, admitted that he had his heart implant's
wireless function disabled in 2007 over fears that
assassins could use it to cause a fatal heart attack.
There are also ethical questions to consider.
Could we see a world in which the rich are augmented and the poor aren't?
And philosophically, will IoB challenge our notions of human
autonomy and self-governance? Who will be responsible for
monitoring the risks?
Most IoB implantable and ingestible devices are regulated by
agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration in the US or its
counterparts internationally. They have a set of rules for things like
cochlear
implants or body part replacements, but IoB consumer
devices are not under their purview.
The recent emergence of these devices, their fast boom in sales, and their
varying capabilities somewhat explains the current patchwork of
legislation at regional, state, and international levels.
However, there are some existing laws that could be extended to
safeguard IoB data.
The EU's General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR,
is designed to protect EU residents from the dangers of data breaches
and cyber attacks. And in the US, the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act, commonly known as HIPAA, is
meant to prevent a patient's information from being disclosed without consent.
As an industry, there's a lot to play for.
According to Mordor Intelligence, the global connected medical device market
alone will be worth around $66 billion in
2024 and is expected to reach more than
132 billion by 2029. That's an annual
growth rate of nearly 15%.
End of transcript · 661 words