IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2016 - 78

No data currently exists to evaluate
long-term implant risks in humans.
Another major societal threat to implementation
exists due to ingrained fears of being chipped and
enslaved, and also from potential identity theft
based on the lack of security in current technology.
Such problems include concerns over what data is
recorded, security against hackers, where data is
stored, what data is used for and by whom. Research
in [56] highlights the fear that having implantable
technology is akin to cattle branding. This subcutaneous technology obviously has much wider applications than mere identification, but the idea of
civilized society being reduced to labelling everyone
with identifying numbers is fundamentally repellent
to some. Of course, the astute reader will note that
this is already the case, examples being the social
security and national insurance numbers in the U.S.
and U.K. respectively.
Fears over the protection of individual human rights
and the perceived endless negative function creep are
threats to the technology, with growing communities of
technology users who object to having their data
mined by companies for marketing purposes [57].
Such fears reflect a wider trend of increasing distrust
of businesses, governments, and organizations, which
is fueled by publicized high-profile leaks of data abuse
such as wiretapping by the U.S. NSA. Employers may
begin to utilize bodily sensor networks to facilitate
employee monitoring, benchmarking, and performance relate benefits [58].
Likewise, other people's implanted and wearable
networks may infringe upon the rights of others in
close proximity. Lifelogging using embedded cameras
is a growing trend amongst the young; however, some
object to being recorded by other people's devices
[59]. For instance, in 2012 technology expert Steve
Mann was attacked in a French restaurant when an
employee took exception to Mann's video-capture eyeglasses [60].
Other barriers to widespread implementation include
a strong wearables market negating the attraction of
implantables, and inadequate corporate funding to
develop technology. Lack of reputable companies developing technology leads to biohacking fringe groups, who
already self-mutilate [17] to implant various subcutaneous items [61] such as temperature sensors, as well as
fanatical tattooists/piercers who provide implantation
services [62], often with few safeguards.

While AI and machine learning may open up new
opportunities for implanted networks to be smart, fears
surrounding machines taking over [63] and recent headline news reports of Google's autonomous car crashing
into a public bus [64] cast doubt on the viability of trusting machines to manage high-risk activities. Many fail to
realize, however, that everyday commercial aircraft such
as the Boeing 747 [65] utilize "auto-pilot" and "autoland" computer technology. To some, this may be proof
that computers are already too involved.
Further hurdles include fears of unknown health
risks, regardless of the quality of implanted devices.
No data currently exists to evaluate long-term implant
risks in humans; however, [66] presented evidence of
direct correlation between implanted RFID chips and
cancer in animals. Furthermore, in 2004 the FDA listed multiple potential health risks associated with the
acclaimed VeriChip device [67]. Indeed, wireless devices emitting nonionizing radio frequencies have been
categorized as potential carcinogens [68], hardly something that the average consumer desires to have
implanted into their bodies.
Finally, major external factors that could derail success are personal liberty and religion based objections.
Most people object strongly to any technology that
effectively allows them to be monitored and tracked
anywhere in real time. A number of world religions
strictly forbid the practice of tattooing and of cutting
the skin, and some Christians would consider subcutaneous identification and e-payment sensors as the impious mark of the beast warned about in eschatological
biblical writings.
None of these issues can be overcome easily as many
of the objections are difficult to remedy. Thus the technology could struggle to enjoy widespread acceptance.

Hurdles to Overcome
Body-implantable devices for non-medical purposes
are emerging as a hot topic that has the potential to
permeate throughout society. This technology has
exceptional hurdles to overcome that many other
emerging technologies do not. This technology could
be a great benefit, but also a considerable threat, to
future society. If well managed, we could realize a new
paradigm in how we work, rest, communicate, play,
exercise, age, travel, and shop, with genuine advances
in security, entertainment, health, efficiency, commerce, and human body enhancement. This technology will be complemented and enriched by emerging
technologies such as Cloud computing, IoT, and NFC.
However, if poorly managed or potentially mismanaged, we could face dystopian societies that better
reflect a George Orwell novel, with key issues including
risks to user health, personal safety, privacy, identity

IEEE TEchnology and SocIETy MagazInE

∕

september 2016

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2016