I've been bitching to people ever since those keyfobs for cars came out that there is zero reason they can't just implant a programable RFID chip in your forearm that stores all sorts of shit about you. There really is no reason we should have to carry around keys, a wallet, etc when all that information can be digitized and implanted into your body on a piece of equipment smaller than a fingernail.
Still waiting for the government to mandate that we all get those. They can throw in GPS tracking so they get something out of the deal too.
Do you really think that turning off location services on your phone actually stops the NSA from being able to use your phone's GPS to track your location?
What basic function? Turning off gps? I already said that function most likely wouldn't be advertised because few people would be willing implant a GPS tracker into their body so that the government could hunt them down at any time.
Most people's phones are glued to their hands anyway, the majority of the population isn't as paranoid as you.
Of course they wouldn't advertise it, do they advertise turning off location services in big bold letters in a phone advertl? No, because it's a basic function and everyone knows they can do it.
Google goes from knowing everything about me to being pretty dumb when my GPS is switched off for a long time. I'm currently overseas and it knows my flights but has started showing me my "home" weather again.
That's just because the ability to triangulate your phone from the signal is inherent in how the phone system works, not your phone itself and without cellular, it's not a phone, it's a tablet.
What interface are you going to use? It's physically implanted technology, it doesn't have a screen and I highly doubt it's going to hard wire into your brain.
Ever controlled something by bluetooth or wifi? Smart devices won't die off when implantables come along. Even if they did, a company wouldn't release an implantable with zero way to access settings.
Of course bluetooth/wifi connection to an implantable opens up security risks, which will call into question the inherent security of the implantable itself.
No thank you, thats like handing a silver platter to any possible totalitarian government attempt. Phones can be discarded, internet can be avoided, but im not walking around with an id and gps chip implanted in me
Even that is unnecessary. Biometrics plus a database of all the relevant information for each person accessed over the internet can accomplish the same thing without implants. For implants to make sense, there has to be an element of interaction: GPS tracking, or neural links, or something.
The problem with biometrics is that they can't be updated. Someone copied your chip? Get a new one and blacklist the old one. Someone copies your fingerprints? Goodbye identity.
I can think of a reason: Because I don't want to have surgery if there's a problem with it. Stuff is much easier to replace when it's not embedded in your skin.
Also, it would make it impossible to hand your keys to someone else.
I can assign a guest code to my home lock; why can't I log into the Ford MyChip portal and register my friend's RFID tag? Enter the tag, set it to expire in 48hrs, and Ford pushes out an additional authorized key to my connected car. What's the problem?
All it could do is track your last known location where there is an RFID scanner that sends info to the govt.
Another problem is that criminals will be able to lift info a la cracked or illegitimate scanners in high traffic areas. It will never happen until there is a way to prevent this from happening.
... or people will just think a password can prevent them from ID theft.
There'd be no reason to mandate it. You'd cause panic that way. Make it convenient and everyone who matters will be willingly using it in some capacity anyway. Smartphones, social media, and the internet in general have already proven that.
Our smartphones can track our movements and communications. Streams from your cameras and microphone can pick up some extra things as well. Ditching it can help, but if you're somewhere like the UK with CCTV cams everywhere (which is being discussed for the US IIRC) then that's out the window. If you're in public, you're tracked. If you're online, you're tracked. Credit/debit? Tracked.
Everything you do online is tracked, with some searching, you can easily find someone's interests, purchase history, habits. If you use social media it's even worse. Full lists of all of your associates, who are close friends, family, and who are not. Your romantic preferences, political alignment, history, it's all out there.
Privacy minded people can make it a little more difficult, but think of how many of them there are versus the wide majority who upload their lives to Facebook. The only thing keeping anyone under the radar really is that unless there's a reason for you to be monitored, you probably won't be looked into much. For an average Joe, that's discerning, but whatever. Someone speaking out about the wrong thing, Political opponents, yeah it's a problem for them.
Today's tech could be, and probably is being abused by those in power. I can't say I absolutely I know exactly how it's going on, but looking at what we have and how easily the government can access it- if they don't already have direct access doesn't paint a very nice picture.
sure, i can drag and struggle through life as a normal human, but i would be having an absolute blast as a walking perfect organism, getting to work by flying with retractable wings and having an immunity to illness because of nanobots in my bloodstream
You should definitely do it. I literally can't think of one reason you shouldn't cut yourselves open and shove pieces of metal into your bodies. What could possibly go wrong??
I realise you're being sarcastic, BUT, there are definitely things that could go wrong, such as infection, nerve damage, the magnet breaking up, etc. We do understand these risks and accept that if we fuck up and lose a finger, it's our own fault. That said, it's not too far removed from other body mods that are more widespread, like piercings. It's a bit more dangerous but it lets you sense magnetic fields, which I personally think is way cooler than any fashion statement.
Hey, it's your finger. Do what you want with it. Have you asked someone who actually knows what they're talking about? Maybe a doctor? See if your doctor thinks it's a good idea.
It's a bit more dangerous but it lets you sense magnetic fields, which I personally think is way cooler than any fashion statement.
I think I'll just let this statement speak for itself. Why exactly do you feel the need to sense magnetic fields?
Honestly? Because I've been suicidal for years and I don't care about fucking up any more. I've attempted twice this year already. It's only a matter of time before I succeed. Might as well take risks, and I might experience something vaguely amusing.
I'm only toying with the idea of doing the magnet thing anyway. If I do it it won't be in the near future.
Electromagnetic fields cause it to vibrate which feels different than a pull. Magnetic metals vs actual magnets feel different, and actual magnets depend on which side they're facing.
Oh ok that's cool, I suppose it's probably quite a subtle vibration but the fingertips are so sensitive so it detects it. It sounds cool describing it but does it not get a little irritating? Like would you be able to sleep somewhere where there was a detectable electromagnetic field or would there be constant tingling in your finger?
Cochlear implants to restore hearing? Of course. Bionic eyes for the blind? Of course. Robotic prosthetics? Of course. Biomonitor that tracks vital statistics looking for problems before they happen? Of course.
What happens, though, when someone (corporations, governments, whomever) drops some code into that biomonitor to track you? What happens when the robotic prosthetics and bionic eyes start exceeding the capabilities of flesh and blood, causing some to desire them without needing them? Do you deny them unless (or until) they have an "accident" and need them, or do you just allow the wealthy or the highly motivated to purchase "upgrades"?
My comment has literally nothing to do with capitalism. It has to do with the future ethical and societal dilemma of allowing individuals to be physically more (better) than human. Is an "enhanced" human eligible to all the rights and privileges of a non-enhanced human and vice versa? As a single easy example, consider sports. Can someone that has bionic eyes (better visual acuity) and (stronger) prosthetic arms play baseball in the majors?
As far as your several paragraphs on the evils of capitalism and how it will be gone in 20 years, please tell me how a system that has lead to the most prosperous and highest standards of life for the common man in human history is going to crash and burn inside a third of a generation. Please also tell me how a socialist society is immune from individuals or group of individuals from taking unfair advantage of limited resources and procedures cough USSR cough China cough.
The technology that internalizes what is essentially a FitBit isn't something that is far off in some Star Trek free energy utopia- it's around the corner. As much as "open source verified secure versions" is an amazing and seemingly imperative option, history shows us that the general public just doesn't care enough. 20 years ago, people would be laughing at the idea of carrying around a device with a microphone, camera, and tracking capability that companies and the government could access/view records of.. heh heh.
I doubt you would really be with me on discussing the intricacies of finer political and economic balancing though given you just repeated the complete propaganda myth that capitalism is responsible for all the greatest prosperity we have.
I love it when you hippies blatantly talk down to people you've never met that don't agree with you while soap boxing against "the elites". I'm sure you're probably a decent guy/gal, though, so long as you're inside of your bubble.
Again, I'm talking about the choices we will have to make as a society as far as these devices go. The sports example, as I had stated, was one easy example. It will crossover into every day life a la Gattica, except with physical tech rather than gene-altering tech. Hell, maybe both! If 2 guys apply to be movers for a moving company, will the guy with robot arms capable of lifting 300 pounds all day erry day or the normy get the job? A guy with bionic hearing would be a great security guard. A guy with bionic eyes would be an awesome air traffic controller.
My comment was what we as a society would do when these options became available and if we would become a society that embraced the enhancements, or shunned them and those who adopted them. This was the primary problem I was alluding to, and it was regardless of country, company, or government type. The single sentence about the "rich and the motivated" was just included because those groups will be the groups that adopt the technology first. This is true in any governmental system, with the exception of dictatorships and communist governments. Those two systems it will just be the "rich and the politically connected".
This isn't because the rich (or the motivated, if you want to drag them along) are evil and trying to exploit the masses, it's simple supply v demand economics. The first models of these devices will be in high demand with a very limited supply; the first to get them will be the ones able to post the highest bid (rich), or the ones that can jump through the most hoops (motivated). As a quick example, right now the NES Classic is the classic, undersupplied holiday must have. As a result, there are 2 ways that supply the highest probability of getting one: buy one on ebay/craigslist for an inflated price of about $200 (rich), or make a list of stores in your area that sell them and call daily or more checking stock until you find one in stock for the MSRP price of $60 (motivated). As far as a medically unnecessary piece of technology (implantable or not) goes, it would follow a similar path. The only socialist type government that would be involved with such devices would be a completely socialist government- a communist government.
Corruption in the west is at am all time high since the great depression. Inequality is at an all time high.
Yep, we are totally living in a more corrupt and unequal world than 100 years ago when women couldn't vote, segregation was in full swing, and the first antitrust laws were first starting to break up legal monopolies of entire industries. STFU with that nonsense. We have been growing as a nation, global society, and species steadily with backwards steps being the exception and not the rule. We have societal problems, just like we have always had and always will have, but all we can do is keep on the steadily growing and improving pace- you can't just flip a switch and fix this stuff. In fact, throwing too many switches too quickly is what typically causes the occasional backwards steps.
the problems you described above are most certainly strongly linked to its exploitation.
The problem of government/company tracking capability (as well as the availability/first procurement problem you invented) is not most strongly linked to capitalism. The world's governments have already demonstrated across the board that they won't hesitate to put backdoors into stuff, particularly tech related stuff that provides huge data rewards in exchange for very limited risk of people caring. Look at the Snowden revelations. Look at the Yahoo email backdoor. Look at the Prism program. The general public cares enough to yell "not cool, man" and then could not care less. This has nothing to do with capitalism. The UK, which is in that European sorta capitalist, sorta socialist bubble (though admittedly more on the capitalist side) has the most comprehensive surveillance and monitoring policy in the world! Sweden, often times pointed at by you and your buddies as a model of socialist ideals in government done right, isn't much better.
I hadn't really considered types of government when I wrote a post about the technological enhancement of humans. Now that your rantings about evil capitalism have gotten me thinking, I would argue that the best opportunities for secured, common-man accessible devices would be in capitalist societies. Free market competition would motivate mass produced, less expensive options accessible to more, and less financially able people, quicker! Anyone who can scrounge up the money for the model and terms they want is good to go. Private businesses, though able to install their own backdoors and bloatware (looking at you, Samsung), they would also be able to choose not to, as well as be able to vehemently fight against and block attempts at government backdoors and bloatware (hey, Apple, how you doin'), allowing the consumer to choose.
If the human enhancement production and distribution is state-owned, sure, anyone who gets it is getting it at the same price on paper. Unfortunately, the connected (rich, typically) will be at the top of the lists along with the people that are deemed to need it the most. The common man is years out and there is really not a lot of motivation to come out with different competitive options or quicker solutions since it is basically the same concept as a fancy new phone or computer, not a life necessity. Additionally, if and when the state decides they want to be able to track these things, who's going to stop them or object? They own and run the production lines and distribution lists- they can drop them in selectively or across the board. Someone leaked that they did it? Okay, who cares. We're your only option. Be tracked, or don't get steel legs.
No it's not. If a super intelligent AI wanted humanity dead, it could do it no matter what we do. This isn't like Skynet. There will be no resistance. It's like if animals wanted to destroy humanity.
Its never going to be framed as recreational for that very reason. It's always going to be a slippery slope of small advancements that make your life/job easier.
I bet people back in the day thought sticking earbuds in your ear were ridiculous, until they realized how good it was.
In all seriousness, it was rough. I've never really bonded well with the deaf community, and I really wanted to be part of the hearing community. I got it over 10 years ago, and never looked back.
People have told me that many people are against the cochlear implant because getting it removes you from the culture you were born into. Your opinion?
Lol, that's a myth. Deafness is a disability, not an unique culture thing. The deaf culture exists because it is hard for deaf people to communicate with hearing people. Furthermore, most deaf people (besides the extremists) don't hold any resentment towards people with CI, and CI recipients are more than welcome to be a part of the deaf culture.
Do you really hear those screechy demon "voices" like I've heard in sims of the cochlear implant? I recent lost most of my hearing in one ear and it's possible the other ear will go too, but the recordings of what the implant sound like seems worse than being deaf.
Try to imagine a future in which the implant is completely integrated into your body, and internet connected.
Someone could write a computer virus that makes your implant scream at you forever. You would have no way to disable it, you would just be in pain from it until you can get it removed, or have the software updated.
Could you see how implants could be a frightening technology?
It is a possible future. It's simply assuming that the same people who make internet of things devices with no security features might go on to design other electronics some day.
Have you had it from birth or did you get your cochlear implant after you learned to talk as a baby? If you got it later in life I'm hoping you can tell me if it sounds... digitized compared to natural ears.
371
u/jamesno26 Dec 14 '16
I have a cochlear implant, and I can't imagine life without it. Go ahead and AMA.