Wireless technologies integrated with the human body used to be science fiction. Not anymore. Today, WiFi-, cellular- or satellite connected devices like sleep trackers, heart monitors, GPS running watches, fitness trackers, smartwatches, etc., represent a $84B global market, expected to continue at double digit growth rates in the foreseeable future, according to Grand View Research. Everybody loves them. These devices address the fundamental need to better understand and monitor our bodies and help it function more optimally. They can put the management of our wellbeing and health back into our hands. They can also play a critical role in achieving more precise and effective treatments and, thus, improved healthcare outcomes. This ecosystem of technologies surrounding our bodies is called “The Internet of Bodies” or “IoB”.
An IoB device is defined as a device that:
- Contains software or computing capabilities
- Communicates with an internet-connected device or network and satisfies one or both of the following:
- Collects person-generated health or biometric data
- Can alter the human body’s function.
This is where it becomes interesting to understand RAND’s take on IoB and its dangers. RAND is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization that provides leaders with the information they need to make evidence-based decisions. In other words, they position themselves as the experts that advice governments in their policy decision making. Their research is sponsored by U.S. government agencies; U.S. state and local governments; allied non-U.S. governments, agencies, and ministries; international organizations; colleges and universities; foundations; professional associations; other nonprofit organizations; and of course industry. Founded in 1948, RAND has informed countless policies related to the world’s most pressing problems in areas of health care, national security, education, international relations, and emerging technologies. So, if they issue a warning, one should take them seriously.
What most of us are familiar with are these first or second generation type of IOB devices like smartwatches, fitness trackers, sleep monitors, etc.
[Newer IOB devices that are] … under development or newly on the market may be less familiar, such as ingestible products that collect and send information on a person’s gut, microchip implants, brain stimulation devices, and internet-connected toilets. These devices have intimate access to the body and collect vast quantities of personal biometric data. IoB device makers promise to deliver substantial health and other benefits but also pose serious risks, including risks of hacking, privacy infringements, or malfunction. Some devices, such as a reliable artificial pancreas for diabetics, could revolutionize the treatment of disease, while others could merely inflate health-care costs with little positive effect on outcomes. Access to huge torrents of live-streaming biometric data might trigger breakthroughs in medical knowledge or behavioral understanding. It might increase health outcome disparities, where only people with financial means have access to any of these benefits. Or it might enable a surveillance state of unprecedented intrusion and consequence. There is no universally accepted definition of the IoB.1 For the purposes of this report, we refer to the IoB, or the IoB ecosystem, as IoB devices (defined next, with further explanation in the passages that follow) together with the software they contain and the data they collect.2
PERCEPTION RESET 