The Internet of Bodies (IoB) and Hacking Your DNA: Paving The Journey Toward Transhumanism

In 2017, the FDA approved the first digital pill: an aripiprazole tablet with an ingestible sensor embedded in the pill that records that the medication was taken. The product is approved for the treatment of schizophrenia, acute treatment of manic and mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder, and for use as an add-on treatment for depression in adults… The system works by sending a message from the pill’s sensor to a wearable patch. The patch transmits the information to a mobile application so that patients can track the ingestion of the medication on their smartphone. Patients can also permit their caregivers and physician to access the information through a web-based portal. 

IoB Needs Advanced Technologies for Peak Usefulness

If you’re wondering what will power all of this forthcoming technology, the answer lies in a combination of 5G, next generation Wi-Fi, and satellite Internet. These advanced systems will increase data transfer speeds and offer extra-low latency so that those audio and visual dropouts on Zoom calls will be relegated to the dust bin of history. Combined, these systems will provide the power and resources necessary to create a control and surveillance grid that can be monitored in real time. RAND confirms this purpose, illustrating that:

These advancements will enable consumer IoT technologies, such as smart home systems, to connect to IoB devices so that, for example, one’s smart thermostat will be linked to her smart clothing and automatically can regulate the temperature in her home. Greater connectivity and the widespread packaging of IoB in smartphones and appliances—some of which might collect data unbeknownst to the user—will increase digital tracking of users across a range of behaviors.

As 5G is widely being rolled out in the U.S. and other parts of the globe, plans are already being made to perfect and implement 6G. According to author Thomas S. Rappaport, 6G technology “will usher in the ability to send wireless signals at the rate of human computation”… and “could mean that human intelligence could eventually be sent over the air instantaneously.” Experts predict 6G will be widely available by 2030.

To top it off, nanobiotechnology is being used to manipulate cells and interconnect human bodies to the Internet. Scientists, researchers, and tech geniuses are attempting to play God by reengineering our cell structures, causing them to communicate with IoB devices. According to an article in News Medical, nanotechnology has “enabled several types of next-generation vaccines” such as the mRNA coronavirus vaccine being developed by Moderna.

Potential Benefits 

The potential downside of IoB technology has been clearly established, but can anything good come out of this? There is no way IoB could be sold to the masses if it didn’t promise to improve quality of life. As RAND indicates:

IoB might enable wider access to health care by enabling inexpensive “distributed” or “democratized” health care or by decreasing the need for risky or costly medical intervention. Through greater health awareness, improved prevention, and more-effective intervention, IoB even has the potential to drive down health-care costs. It was hypothesized that early detection and intervention through remote monitoring were the primary drivers of the reduction. IoB devices can gather vital data to provide medical alerts to doctors, patients, and caregivers. IoB devices might also prove useful in guiding treatment for those who cannot speak or articulate their symptoms or thoughts, such as infants, stroke victims, or dementia patients, by alerting caregivers to significant changes in vital signs, for instance. IoB is a promising approach for developing real-time remote health monitoring systems for noncommunicable disease patients, most immediately diabetics and heart patients.

If any of these scenarios helps save and improve lives, then maybe IoB is a worthy endeavor. However, a careful reading of this quote reveals that IoB benefits are described with phrases such as “might enable,” “has the potential,” “might also prove useful,” and “is a promising approach.” In other words, IoB technology is still experimental and many things can go wrong if implemented on a wide scale.

Advertisements

We already know that radiation from mobile phones causes cancer. What happens when IoB devices powered by tech with even greater levels of radiation are implanted in the human body? Where are the long-term safety studies? If they already exist or are currently being conducted, who is sponsoring them? If the studies originate from the same industries poised to profit from their use, then malfeasance is all but guaranteed.

Potential for Misuse 

Unfortunately, it seems as though the negative consequences of IoB devices will far outweigh their advances. There are just way too many things that can go wrong as indicated in Table 4.

From death, to national security challenges, to infringement on body autonomy, the negative outcomes of IoB technology are devastating. RAND confirms even more concerns, highlighting that:

Access to huge torrents of live-streaming biometric data might…enable a surveillance state of unprecedented intrusion and consequence. It might increase health outcome disparities, where only people with financial means have access to any of these benefits. The increased connectivity in IoT and IoB devices may provide an increased attack surface that introduces more vulnerabilities through these networks. Just as foreign possession of data on Americans’ dating habits or HIV status could be used for nefarious purposes, U.S. consumers’ biometric and health data might be exploited by adversaries who could compile data from numerous sources to build detailed profiles of their American targets. 

Of course, many people already have implanted medical devices to simply keep them alive. Yet, even these types of frequently used implants are largely untested. A Consumer Reports article underscored this issue, asserting:

Tens of millions of Americans live with medical devices implanted in their bodies—artificial joints, heart defibrillators, surgical mesh. And it’s a safe bet that most of them assume that someone, somewhere, tested the devices for safety and effectiveness. 

But that is rarely the case. For most implants and other high-risk devices brought to market, manufacturers do nothing more than file some paperwork and pay the Food and Drug Administration a user fee of roughly $4,000 to start selling a product that can rack up many millions of dollars in revenue. 

IoB is Currently Unregulated

While acknowledging the extreme danger this technology introduces, companies are continually creating new products and collecting data without much oversight or regulation. This poses two critical questions: (1) who owns the data collected through IoB devices and technology and (2) how will tech developers and data collectors be regulated? RAND acknowledges the lack of answers regarding these issues, explaining:

As with IoB devices, there is no single entity that provides oversight to IoB data…Data brokers are largely unregulated, and the United States has no federal data privacy law but relies on state laws which differ greatly.

The lack of consistency in IoB laws among states and between the state and federal level potentially enables regulatory gaps and enforcement challenges. As in many areas, rapid advancements in IoB technologies have outpaced the development of policy to address their risks. 

…There are as yet no legal norms about who owns the data generated by any given IoB device—the user, the manufacturer, the health-care provider? Policies that regulate the sale of user information to third-party data brokers, or that regulate how data brokers function, are nascent if they exist at all.

IoB is Directly Connected to Transhumanism, Biohacking, and Cyborgs

Many people are already used to data-tracking devices, but are they prepared to endure even more invasive technology as proposed by transhumanists, bio/body hackers, and cyborgs? RAND describes each of these movements as follows:

Transhumanism is a worldview and political movement advocating for the transcendence of humanity beyond current human capabilities. Transhumanists want to use technology, such as artificial organs and other techniques, to halt aging and achieve “radical life extension”.  

Bodyhacking generally refers to modifying the body to enhance one’s physical or cognitive abilities.  

Cyborgs, or cybernetic organisms, are people who have used machines to enhance intelligence or the senses.

Here are just a few examples of the bizarre things people ascribing to one or more of these movements have done to their bodies:

• a colorblind man had an antenna surgically implanted in his head to “hear” color
• a filmmaker had a wireless video camera planted in his eye, becoming the world’s first “eyeborg”
• a body-modification artist pioneered the process of implanting magnets under the skin
• a company called Grindhouse Wetware created the Northstar V1 device, which shines red light through the skin, mimicking bioluminescence
• people in Sweden have gotten microchips placed in their hands to replace cash and credit cards