Below is a transcript of the video.
You’ve heard the term “Internet of Things” – inanimate objects that can be connected to the internet and each other.
But in 2016, scholar and author Dr. Andrea M. Matwyshyn went a step further and coined the term “Internet of Bodies,” or IoB.
She describes it as “a human network whose integrity and functionality relies at least in part on the Internet and related technologies such as artificial intelligence.”
This may sound far-fetched, but if you own one of these, you are already part of the IoB world.
IoBs are divided into three categories based on the device’s integration level.
The first generation is external. Things like smart watches or rings that use sensors to track our steps and heart rate. Or smart glasses, which function as cameras, headphones and displays.
The second generation is internal. These are devices that you ingest or implant. Think pacemakers with digital implants, smart prosthetics hardwired into the patient’s nerves and muscles… even digital pills that transmit medical data when ingested.
Finally, there is the third generation. These devices fully integrate with the body while maintaining an instant connection to external machines and the Internet.
One of the most prominent companies in the field is Elon Musk’s Neuralink, which is developing a brain-computer interface, or BCI, called “the Link.”
A coin-sized chip is implanted under the skull and can read signals from a person’s brain and allow them to control external machines.
Neuralink’s first test subject, who was paralyzed from the shoulders down, used the device to play chess on a laptop. Although a few weeks after the surgery, Neuralink reported some glitches.
Proponents of IoB devices say the benefits are clear: They will improve body cognition and function, improve health care, and generate significant cost savings for individuals and businesses. But some see the benefits, others see the risks. Even the original article that coined the term warned of the technology’s pitfalls.
For one, data protection will be crucial. Many of these devices will be able to track, record and store personal information. Critics argue that if governments and companies get hold of this data, they could use it to spy on citizens or turn it into a revenue stream. There are also concerns about dependence, addiction and physical safety. For example, former US Vice President Dick Cheney admitted that he disabled the wireless functionality of his heart implant in 2007 out of concern that an assassin could use it to cause a fatal heart attack.
There are also ethical issues to consider. Could we see a world where the rich are enhanced and the poor are not? Philosophically speaking, will IoB challenge our notions of human autonomy and autonomy? Who is responsible for monitoring risks?
Most IoB implantable and ingestible devices are regulated by agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration or their international counterparts.
They have a set of rules for things like cochlear implants or body part replacements, but IoB consumer devices are outside their jurisdiction. The recent emergence of these devices, the rapid growth of their sales, and their diverse capabilities partly explain the current patchwork of legislation at regional, state, and international levels. However, some existing laws can be extended to protect IoB data.
The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) aims to protect EU residents from the risks of data breaches and cyberattacks.
In the United States, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (commonly known as HIPAA) is designed to prevent the disclosure of patient information without consent.
As an industry, there is a lot to play for. According to Mordor Intelligence, the global connected medical device market alone will be worth approximately $66 billion by 2024 and is expected to reach more than $132 billion by 2029.
About The Author
