CS TASK 1 YEA BOI 2k12

COMPUTER SYSTEMS – TASK ONE

 

What are the implications of technology being able to monitor the bodily functions of people without requiring their awareness? Technology in this area has been in use since the first artificial cardiac pacemakers were implemented in 1958. Since then, as technology has become more sophisticated, non-biological implants have been used not just to monitor and regulate bodily functions, but even to replace them altogether. The article referenced herein will be “Reflecting Human Values in the Digital Age”.

 

The field of implantable monitors has seen some promising developments in recent years; an example of an implantable monitor already in relatively common use is the Insertable Cardiac Monitor or ICM. The ICM is a small device that is placed under skin near the heart that constantly monitors your heart rhythm, the data from which can be stored and accessed in various different ways depending on the brand and age of the implant, but the data is usually stored and/or accessed remotely. While the networks that transmit the data are considered secure, it’s been proven time and again that so-called “secure” channels do not always turn out to be so. As implants become more common, and the kind of data they are monitoring becomes more in-depth, is it possible that unauthorised third parties may try and access the data that is being stored there? While the answer is unclear at the moment, as the prevalence of these implants is on the rise it becomes an issue that may increasingly be a cause for concern.

 

It’s also worth considering the possibility that the data collected by any implanted monitors may become freely available to certain third parties, such as health insurers or government agencies, who could use it to get a more accurate picture of our health. As these devices are intended to monitor you constantly, and with little or no way to interface with them, it may become impossible to hide any difficulties you are having with your health. This could mean being a charged a higher premium for your health insurance, and in countries where healthcare is not free this can lead to a myriad of disputes and complications. Will patients be allowed to refuse access to the information stored by their implants to people outside of the medical profession? How will this affect our privacy? This could be seen a side-effect of one of the transformations mentioned in the article, “the end of the ephemeral” as well as a symptom of a society where we can no longer “switch off”.

 

In the case of the ICM and other subcutaneous implants, after the incision site itself has healed it can become easy to almost forget the implant is there. This increasing comfort and trust we place in technology and its automation may come at the cost of our caution and ability to safeguard ourselves and our rights to privacy. This is an example of the first transformation mentioned in the article, the “end of interface stability”.

 

Another example of modern implanted technology is neutral pacemakers, used in the treatment of epilepsy, chronic pain and Parkinson’s disease, as well as more recently in the treatment of severe depression and other pathological illnesses. These implants work by electrically stimulating specific areas of the brain and can eliminate or severely reduce the symptoms of these diseases; their stimulation can be pre-programmed or responsive, but in all cases there is little or no way for the patient to interface with their device. Allowing technology any amount of control over such a complex and sensitive part of the body was always going to be met with controversy; as neutral implants garner more attention concerns are being raised about our privacy and security, and even mind control. Some of the side effects from the neural implants can be unpredictable and severe, the worst of which can be as drastic and disturbing as personality changes or compulsive behaviours such as gambling and hypersexuality.

 

This raises some important questions about human interaction with machines. How far are people willing to integrate their lives with technology? How does this impact on people with particular religious or ethical beliefs that may result in them refusing to get any kind of implant? Will they be expected to compromise their beliefs, or will the increase in prevalence of this technology lead to wider societal changes? This is one example of technology being strongly interlaced with human values, that as the article suggests the analysis of which "might need to draw on disciplines as diverse as philosophy, psychology, art, sociology, cultural studies, and architecture.”

 

On the opposite end of the spectrum comes developments in vital sign monitors that require no body contact at all. These technologies are being tested in various hospitals in the USA and UK, and work by using a sensor array to monitor things such as the patient’s heart rate, respiratory rate and even the frequency with which they leave their bed with no body contact at all – one system is even capable of monitoring several patients at once. While the benefits of this technology inside the medical profession are undeniable, one has to wonder about its future use in other sectors. As “our security” becomes an increasingly easy way for the government to convince us to willingly forfeit our rights to privacy, this no-contact monitoring could be used in high security areas such as airports to monitor people’s heart and respiratory rates without their knowledge, to aid in the detection of people who are nervous or agitated and perhaps planning to do something criminal. As stated in the article, “the interaction between values and technology needs to be much more carefully navigated than before.” When the article discussed redefining HCI, and states the “H representing the user” needs new definition, this is as much because it is not always clear who the “user” is. If technology is scanning or monitoring you without your awareness, are you the user? If not, how can your role be defined?

 

As developments in the area of remote monitoring advance a new type of dilemma arises. When something as fundamentally intimate as our bodily functions becomes information that computers can both share and harvest without our knowledge or consent, how will our opinions to our bodies change? It can often take years after the advent of a new technology for laws and regulations to be passed governing its use, and it will be important to protect the interests of people using these new technologies as quickly as they are developing. It’s difficult to speculate what kind of changes will occur, but it is ground that needs to be trodden carefully and discussed at length.