posted 07-01-2002 10:03 PM              

"It is believed to be the world's first commodity based in-body product and builds upon the current form of replacement surgery, such as artificial joints."

designed by RCA graduates James Auger and Jimmy Loizeau it is a concept for a phone that is essentially a transceiver/reciever implanted into one of your molar's through a routine dental operation that then uses vibration to convey sound along your jawbone to your ear. Because of its discreetness, potential use scenarios include (the usual) stockbrokers receiving share-prices while in the theatre or to help politicians in an interview, etc. Whatever the case, it is the ultimate in small portable telecommunications (its a small phone, maybe im just tired of the cliche user scenarios).

Although in one article it is stated that the designers were to "demonstrate to the public how it works at the Future Product awards at the Science Museum in London", in another it points out that:
"the tooth phone is only a mock-up and lacks the communications chip to actually turn it into a functioning device. Mr Auger said the technology to turn it into a working device already existed and it would be a simple matter to build the relevant chips into the gadget."

The first article I read about this (http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/06/18/020618hntooth.xml) excited me somewhat, as it seemed that the device had actually been invented and was working. But subsequent articles http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2055000/2055654.stm

and
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Sci_Tech/story_34483.asp)

made it clear that it was just a grad concept and was not functional. Although I am in the same line of work (my grad project was not functional by any means), somehow the credit that this project is getting seems undeserving to me. I dont think anything was actually invented, and anybody who has an interest in cybernetics to AI to nanotechnology (or advanced electronics at all for that matter) has probably heard of this stuff before (not to mention that every 2nd ID student around the world and their grandma has come up with concepts like this already). Concepts aside, I've heard of projects like this years ago that even went so far as to project that a product like this could run of a person's blood sugar. Books (again, written years ago) by futurists like Ray Kurzweil talk at lenght about how nanotechnology will mean the implantation of technology into our bodies will seem like just a natural step in our evolution. Steve Mann of the U of T (http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~mann/) has been living as a cyborg for twenty years now.

Im not sure what to make of the concept and prototype, as different media outlets describe it and its level of completeness differently. They are developing it further with the Media Lab in Dublin, so it must have some merit. For me, I keep thinking that this isnt all that new, but perhaps the "inventors" have indeed taken wearable computing to a new level. The level of media coverage in itself is interesting to me in that I have told my friends for a couple years now that one day their cell-phone would be implanted in their head and they always laughed. it now seems that ideas this sort of idea will begin to filter more and more into the mainstream in the coming years. or perhaps it is just because it was done by students at RCA.

so, im interested in your thoughts on:

- the concept/prototype
- media attention it is getting
- wearable computing

cheers.

first heard in the vancouver sun: http://www.canada.com/technology/story.html?id={1F092BA0-AA1E-4BBD-9D0E-2D374D6C196C}

posted 07-02-2002 01:42 AM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Get right back to you...:
...my suppository phone is ringing.

---

posted 07-02-2002 01:37 PM              

DOOM, as for your statement's about this not being ID, I dont agree with you (in the context of these types of product concepts in general, as Im not too excited about this product in particular). For one thing, one of the guys who worked on it has his ID undergrad from Glasgow School of Art + Design,his Master's in product design from Royal College, and interned at IDEO (he worked on the identity card concept project). http://www.augerment.com/

posted 07-02-2002 09:03 PM              

This kind of product (technology implanted in the body) is absolutely the most disturbing thing I’ve seen come out of ID/engineering. This kind of product should NOT be made or promoted. The specific example of a tooth phone is relatively benign, but it represents a really scary trend in general towards implanted technology. There is no real practical function to this idea and the potential abuse is unlimited.

Actually, let me explain two things. First, I’m not against technology being incorporated into our lives in general. What I’m against is implanting technology in the body. Look at it as two extremes; people completely against technology on one end, and people so gung-ho about technology at the other that they don’t see the potential for abuse. It needs to be brought back to the middle, a place where technology can be kept under control by people and not be used to control people.

Second, let me define what I’m including under “lacking practical function” here: I’m not talking about technology implanted for medical functions such as a heart pacer; that has a purpose. What I’m talking about is anything that’s a communication device, tracking device, or record keeping device specifically implanted in the body. The absolute worst of these is nanotechnology – scariest ****ing thing I’ve ever heard of.

With any technology there are associated benefits and drawbacks. In many cases, people decide the benefits have outweighed the drawbacks. In the case of implanted technology, it's my belief that the drawbacks completely negate any possible benefits.

The negative implications for implanted technology are huge. What is to stop whoever invents/controls the distribution and implantation of the technology from using it to monitor or control other people? Particularly with nanotechnology, where you potentially wouldn’t even know it was inside you, there’s way too much potential for monitoring and control. So what’s wrong with monitoring people? One major concern is quashing of dissent of any kind, in thought, politics, etc. A class division between those who control the technology and those who are implanted is definitely a possibility, ala big brother. Does this sound crazy? Crazy things can happen when you start doing crazy things like putting technology into people’s bodies.

So what are the proposed “benefits” of these technologies? I don’t see them. If there’s some practical use beyond helping stockbrokers get updates during the opera, then someone please explain what it is. Increasing the speed and constancy of communication is not a valid enough need to warrant the negative impacts of having this stuff in your body. And stockbrokers need to just enjoy the opera anyway. The only possible benefit I’ve heard of for this stuff is that it can potentially be used to save lives (track a lost kid in woods, medical info stored in microchip, etc.). But considering this would be valuable in a minimal number of cases per year, it’s not enough to counter the negative impacts. I also don’t agree that this is just a natural step in human evolution. Evolution towards WHAT is the question that hasn’t been considered.

The most disturbing thing in my opinion is the way people are promoting the idea. Probably the worst form is the attempts to bully people into thinking this is necessary or something that everyone will have in a year (don’t be left behind!). This happened when Tucker Viemeister came to my former school a few years ago and gave a presentation on his concept for a phone implanted just behind the ear. Basically throughout the whole presentation he put in little statements about how if you didn’t agree that implanted technology was the wave of the future, you were a reactionary idiot. The highlight was when he put up a slide with a picture of maw and paw on their porch, holding their respective shotguns and referred to them as the type of clueless people who were scared of technology and didn’t want to incorporate it into their lives. The message: if you don’t want a phone implanted in your head you’re a reactionary and a luddite.

Well, this is really long and rambling, so all I can say in conclusion is that I sincerely hope that as this kind of thing becomes promoted more, people will actually start to think about the drawbacks as well as the “benefits”.

posted 07-02-2002 09:47 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by DOOM:
there is absolutely no ID in the "tooth phone". this is a hands-off for us......

---

posted 07-03-2002 01:25 PM              

the sort of technology that has been brought up here are coming and in many ways there isnt much we can do to stop it. Historically, people have expressed the feelings you bring up at the beginnings of every revolutionary technology. The original luddites reacted against things that we dont we necessarily consider to be 'technology' anymore, namely mass manufacturing processes that they felt would take jobs away from them. If you will, they felt that these machines taking away their livelihood, doing human work, was a negative step in evolution and made them less human. In reality, these machines ended up creating more jobs. In our own more recent history we see a similar sort of reaction by the 'neo-luddites' against the digital revolution (computers and the internet). For us sitting here at our computers, we don't have a problem with the technology, or seem to have accepted it. We see the benefits - advanced medecine, more jobs, better communication - outweighing the negative (but as with nanotech, many negatives came with the given technology infrastructure). Without a doubt, there will be 'luddites' as new, smaller, and more powerful technology comes to be. I say there will, because by most accounts there isnt a lot we can do to stop it. It wont happen overnight, but one day having a cell-phone in your head may seem as mundane as sitting down to check you email is now (and ten years ago, not many people had even heard of the internet). In this way, the advancement of technology is very much a part of our evolution (consider that much of early human's evolution is categorized by their use of tools). As flyby mentioned, pacemakers are commonplace now, and new technology will soon allow the blind to see, or the deaf to hear. Other implants or prosthetics may restore movement to amputees or parapalegics. Another implant may restore memory of an alzeimer's patient, or enhance the mental capabilities of somebody who has brain damage.... nanotechnology goes takes things further. imagine having millions of tiny robots that enter your body to do the jobs your cells cant. Essentially, technology like this will continue to be developed not only out of curiousity, but most likely because of the unarguable benefits to medicine. soon, it becomes the next step in wearable technology. the point is, once you go down that road for one reason, the door is open and it is near impossible to close; we cant say that this technology will be used for medicine but not communication...and it already is.

you make a good point in that perhaps this technology should stop at medicine, and not be used for things as 'frivolous' as communication. As Industrial Designer's we may be in the position to influence where and how this new technology is used, at least for the public (at least come up with better uses that allowing a stock broker to check the quotes at the opera...brutal).

as for the tooth phone, my bet is that the fbi or military has come up with this sort of stuff long before the RCA boys did...or at least give gene roddenberry the credit before them.

posted 07-03-2002 05:28 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Canadian ID:
you bring up some good points C.
im rambling now, so ill stop.

---

posted 07-03-2002 07:32 PM              

Canadian ID, nice summary about the history of luddites, neo-luddites, etc. I agree, the perception of what is “too much, too far” shifts depending on what you’re already used to. It’s all technically a matter of opinion. It’s ok for people to choose to be luddites. And it’s ok if people want to have their cell phone and pda with them 24/7. That’s their personal decision.

But I still have an issue with implanted technology in that it has the potential to go too far in one important area: choice. This is the thing that takes it to a different and more disturbing level. Right now we can choose when to turn the computer off and go outside. People can choose to live a life without any modern technology at all and go back to the land or whatever. This is because all the technology (communication, not medical) we currently use is physically external from the human body.

A significant aspect of control and choice is lost once you start putting technology into your body. First of all, it would be a medical procedure and you’d have to have a specialist take it out again. This is particularly the case with nanotechnology – once it’s in there how do you get it out? This would be a problem especially if something went unexpectedly wrong, but also if you just decided you didn’t want it in you anymore.

There’s also the concern of dependence – both psychological and physical. Psychological effects can already be seen in the technology we use today – tv, internet, etc. – some people would be lost if these things were suddenly taken away from them. Physical effects, well the example I’m thinking of is that guy that decided to turn himself into a cyborg with all sorts of sensory-enhancement technology. He’d been living with it for years, then he tried to go on a plane and the security guards made him take it all off, and the guy basically couldn’t function without it (though I heard this was maybe a ploy for publicity rather than a real medical problem…). The point is, once it’s in there, people probably would want or wouldn’t even be ABLE to choose not to have the technology anymore.

A final issue is the peer pressure aspect of it. This would be particularly true with vision enhancement, etc. – once someone has an edge, everyone else feels like they have to have it too, restricting choice from the other end of the equation.

So for these reasons it seems it would be nearly impossible to choose not to have the technology in your body once it’s in, or to choose not to have it when everyone else does. And this becomes a problem when someone figures out they can exert control over people through the devices they’ve put in their bodies. Essentially, my concern is that people won’t have a choice to be luddites if they want to.

posted 07-03-2002 08:23 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Canadian ID:
ok then, whats your take on this ufo?

---

posted 07-03-2002 10:11 PM              

It has been predicted that in 10 years the military will be testing an implantable chip on soldiers that could do one or all of these things: enhance senses (such as seeing IR & UV), enhance memory, enable invisible communication with others (the next generation tooth phone - no talking necessary), and enable constant access to information when it is needed. General consumer adoption of this technology would be in 20 - 30 years. We would be creating our own Matrix, or the Collective Consciousness, or whatever you want to call it. And the totalitarian mind control ramifications are unfathomable.