Transcript · English → Chinese
Exploring the Internet of Bodies
你听说过“物联网”这个术语， 在其中，无生命物体可以相连
到互联网，也可彼此连接。 但在2016年，一位学者兼
作家安德里亚·马特维申博士 更进一步，
创造了“人体互联网”一词， 即IoB。
她将其描述为由人体构成的网络， 其完整性和
功能至少部分依赖于 互联网及相关
技术， 例如人工智能。
这听起来或许很牵强，但 如果你有其中之一，你已经
是IoB世界的一员。IoB 分为三类，
按设备的整合程度 划分。
第一代是外置设备，
比如智能手表或戒指， 它们利用传感器追踪我们的步数和
心率，或智能眼镜， 其可用作摄像头、耳机和
显示器。
第二代是内置式的。
这些设备可被吞服 或植入体内。
想想装有数字植入物的心脏起搏器， 智能假肢
与患者的神经 和肌肉硬连接，甚至还有数字药丸
被吞服后会传输医疗数据。
最后是第三代。
这些设备会与 身体完全融合，同时保持与
外部机器和互联网的 实时连接。
这一领域最引人注目的公司之一 是埃隆·马斯克的 Neuralink，它正在
开发一种脑机接口， 简称 BCI，名为
Link。这种硬币大小的芯片 被植入颅骨下方，
可读取人的脑部信号 并让他们控制一台
外部机器。
我以前得用，比如说，口棒 之类的东西，
但现在全都通过我的
大脑。
Neuralink的首位测试对象， 从肩膀以下瘫痪，
用该设备在他的 笔记本电脑上下棋，但几周后，
Neuralink报告称出现了一些故障。
IoB设备的支持者表示，其益处 显而易见。
它们将改善人体认知 和功能，改善医疗保健，
并让
个人和企业 节省大量成本。
但有些人看到益处， 另一些人则看到风险。
就连最初提出这一术语的文章 也警告过这项技术的
缺陷。首先， 数据保护将至关重要。
许多这类设备将能够 追踪、记录和存储
个人信息。批评者认为， 如果政府
和公司获得了这些
数据， 他们可能会用其监视公民
或将他们
转化为收入来源。还 有人担忧依赖性问题，
成瘾和人身安全。 例如，前美国副总统
迪克·切尼承认， 他曾将心脏植入物的
无线功能于2007年关闭， 因为担心
刺客可能利用它引发致命的 心脏病发作。
还有一些伦理问题需要 考虑。
我们会不会看到一个富人 得到增强而穷人没有的世界？
从哲学角度看， 物联网身体会挑战我们对人类
自主性和自我治理的观念吗？ 谁将负责
监控这些风险？
大多数可植入和可摄入的 物联网身体设备均受
美国食品 药品监督管理局等机构或其
国际对应机构监管。 它们对诸如
人工耳蜗等事项有一套规定
植入物或身体部位替代物， 但消费级人体互联网（IoB）
设备不在其监管范围内。
这些设备近期出现， 销量迅速增长，且功能
各异，这在一定程度上解释了 当前零散拼凑的
地区、州及国际层面的 立法。
不过，现有的一些法律 可以扩展至
保护人体互联网数据。
欧盟《通用数据保护条例》， 即 GDPR，
旨在保护欧盟居民免受 数据泄露
和网络攻击的危害。在美国， 《健康保险
可携性与责任法案》， 通常称为 HIPAA，
旨在防止患者信息 未经同意被披露。
作为一个行业，利害攸关。
据 Mordor Intelligence 称， 全球联网医疗设备市场
仅在2024年就将价值约660亿美元，
预计到2029年将超过
1320亿美元。这意味着年均
增长率接近15%。
End of transcript · 686 words · machine translated
Original transcript (English)
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%.
