WS #171 Mind Your Body: Pros and Cons of IoB

Summary

This discussion focused on the emerging field of Internet of Bodies (IoB) technologies and their implications for healthcare, cybersecurity, and society. Experts from various fields explored how IoB devices, which integrate technology with the human body, are revolutionizing medical care while also raising significant ethical and security concerns.

The medical benefits of IoB were highlighted, including improved diagnostics, remote patient monitoring, and personalized treatments. However, participants emphasized the need for robust cybersecurity measures to protect against potential hacking and data breaches, which could have severe consequences given the intimate nature of these devices.

The discussion also delved into the societal impacts of IoB technologies. Concerns were raised about potential inequality in access to these technologies, leading to a divide between “enhanced” and “unenhanced” individuals. The ethical implications of altering human biology and the risks of manipulation through IoB devices were also explored.

Participants stressed the importance of developing comprehensive regulatory frameworks to govern the development, implementation, and use of IoB technologies. They emphasized the need for collaboration between governments, private companies, and individuals to ensure responsible innovation and protect user rights.

The discussion concluded by acknowledging the inevitability of IoB advancements while emphasizing the critical need for ongoing research, public awareness, and proactive policymaking to harness the benefits of these technologies while mitigating potential risks.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Medical applications and benefits of Internet of Bodies (IoB) devices, including AI-assisted diagnostics and remote patient monitoring

– Cybersecurity risks and privacy concerns associated with IoB devices

– Potential for IoB technologies to widen social and economic inequalities

– Ethical implications and need for regulation of IoB technologies

– Future impacts of IoB on human evolution and society

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore the various implications – both positive and negative – of Internet of Bodies technologies as they become more prevalent. The speakers aimed to raise awareness about the potential benefits as well as risks that need to be considered and addressed.

The tone of the discussion was generally cautious and concerned, while still acknowledging the potential benefits of IoB technologies. Speakers highlighted exciting medical applications but also emphasized the need for careful regulation and consideration of ethical issues. The tone became more apprehensive when discussing future scenarios of human augmentation and potential societal divides, but remained analytical rather than alarmist.

Speakers

– Alina Ustinova: Moderator

– Lev Pestrenin: Deputy Department Head of Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine of the Moscow Health Department

– Igor Sergeyev: Head Researcher of Federal Center for Applied Development of Artificial Intelligence

– Irina Pantina: JR Director of Positive Technologies

– Gabriella Marcelja: CEO of CJ Impact Ventures

– James Nathan Adjartey Amattey: Speaking from Ghana, expertise in technology and regulation

Additional speakers:

– Anna Kralina-Dias: Online moderator (mentioned but did not speak)

Internet of Bodies (IoB) Technologies: Implications for Healthcare, Cybersecurity, and Society

This comprehensive discussion explored the emerging field of Internet of Bodies (IoB) technologies and their wide-ranging implications for healthcare, cybersecurity, and society. Experts from various fields, including medical diagnostics, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and venture capital, convened to examine how IoB devices, which integrate technology with the human body, are revolutionising medical care while simultaneously raising significant ethical and security concerns.

Medical Applications and Benefits

The discussion began on an optimistic note, with several speakers highlighting the potential medical benefits of IoB technologies. Lev Pestrenin, Deputy Department Head of the Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine of the Moscow Health Department, emphasised that artificial intelligence and IoB could improve healthcare quality and access. This sentiment was echoed by Igor Sergeyev, Head Researcher of the Federal Center for Applied Development of Artificial Intelligence, who noted that IoB devices enable remote patient monitoring and early disease detection.

Gabriella Marcelja, CEO of CJ Impact Ventures, further elaborated on how IoB implants and wearables can enhance medical diagnostics and treatment. Specific examples of IoB devices mentioned included smart lenses, insulin pumps, and cochlear implants, illustrating the diverse range of applications in healthcare.

Cybersecurity Risks and Privacy Concerns

The conversation shifted to address the serious cybersecurity risks associated with IoB technologies. Irina Pantina, JR Director of Positive Technologies, warned that IoB devices are vulnerable to hacking, data breaches, and unauthorized access. She stressed the urgent need for robust cybersecurity measures to protect IoB users. Gabriella Marcelja concurred, highlighting the risks of surveillance and privacy violations posed by these technologies.

Alina Ustinova provided a thought-provoking insight: “Sometimes when we speak about internet of bodies, we need to understand that if something is integrated into your body, that means that you are a computer yourself and you can be hacked as a computer.” This comment effectively shifted the discussion towards deeper consideration of the ethical concerns surrounding IoB technologies.

James Nathan Adjartey Amattey, speaking from Ghana, raised a unique challenge specific to internal IoB devices: “Now, if it’s an external software system, you know, there could be preventive measures that could be implemented, but if it’s in the body, and then the body is now being misconfigured, how do we reconfigure that?” This comment highlighted the complex technical and ethical challenges associated with updating or fixing internal IoB devices.

Ethical Implications and Societal Impact

The discussion then delved into the broader ethical and societal implications of IoB technologies. Gabriella Marcelja raised concerns about the potential for IoB to widen socioeconomic gaps and create “augmented elites”. She cautioned, “So wealthy nations will adopt augmentation tech faster. So we will see a marginalised group of countries. And we definitely need to eventually ensure equal access if this is in the interest of the patient.” Marcelja drew an analogy comparing IoB device access to organ transplant waiting lists, highlighting the potential for inequality in access to these technologies.

James Nathan Adjartey Amattey emphasized the potential for manipulation and social engineering through IoB devices, as well as their possible use as tools for government control or weapons. He stressed the importance of community awareness and education about IoB technologies, especially in developing countries.

Gabriella Marcelja also raised the possibility of a “gray economy” of fake implants emerging, further complicating the ethical landscape of IoB technologies.

Governance and Ethical Considerations

The need for comprehensive governance frameworks to address the ethical and societal challenges posed by IoB technologies emerged as a crucial point of discussion. Irina Pantina emphasised the importance of multi-stakeholder cooperation in governing IoB responsibly. She stated, “So establishing the rules for how to use these devices, how to let them enter the markets and how to be affordable for different groups of people. Without any dependencies.”

Lev Pestrenin highlighted the need for multidisciplinary teams and improved communication to address the challenges of IoB. This point underscored the complex nature of developing and implementing such rapidly advancing technologies.

Conclusion

The discussion concluded by acknowledging the significant potential benefits of IoB technologies in healthcare while emphasizing the critical need for ongoing research, public awareness, and proactive policymaking to mitigate potential risks. The speakers demonstrated a moderate level of consensus, particularly on the need for responsible development and governance of IoB technologies.

The conversation raised several thought-provoking questions for future consideration, including strategies for managing cybersecurity risks, preventing social inequality due to unequal access, maintaining personal autonomy in an increasingly connected world, and addressing the potential for manipulation and misuse of IoB devices. These questions highlight the need for continued interdisciplinary dialogue and research to address the complex challenges posed by Internet of Bodies technologies.

Alina Ustinova: The devices are used for the medical purposes, but because of that new technology, we should understand how it will affect not even us as human beings, our evolution, but also the cyber security issues and the emerging technologies issues. So we will try to understand during this session how this technology will affect us. And we’re joined by the wonderful speakers here. I will introduce them all shortly and they will try to answer your questions. So how the discussion will went, we will be divided by blocks. The first block will be medical. Then we have a little Q&A session. Then we have the AI emerging technology block, and then we’ll have a little Q&A session. And then the last one is cyber security block. But it depends on how you went. And if you want to ask questions after the session, it’s possible. The organizer asked us to be a little bit earlier, so we’ll finish about 10.50. So thank you very much. So today we’re joined by Lev Pistranian, he’s the deputy department head of Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine of the Moscow Health Department. We also have Igor Sergeyev, the head researcher of Federal Center for Applied Development of Artificial Intelligence. He’s online. Gabriella Marchella, the CEO of CJ Impact Ventures. Irina Pantina, the JR director of Positive Technologies. James Amati of Norrison IT, he’s also with us online. And also we have a wonderful online moderator, Anna Kralina-Dias, who will help me in this session, I hope, and will ask the question coming from the chat online. So we’ll start with the medical block, and with understanding of how these devices are used. in the medical purposes. So Lev, please start. The floor is yours. Thank you.

Lev Pistrenin: Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for coming. I am a researcher in the Moscow Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine. And we implement artificial intelligence in healthcare, specifically in radiology. So why do I sit here? I think I’m sure that artificial intelligence and Internet of Bodies have something in common. Both are new technologies and we want to benefit from them while we also want avoiding risks of these technologies. So today I’d like to show you on the example of artificial intelligence implementation in the healthcare, I’d like to show how is it possible to really benefit and to avoid risks at the same time. One moment. Something is wrong with my presentation. Yes. Okay, thank you very much. So in a few words, what is radiology in Moscow looks like? As usual, patients undergo radiological studies for example, chest X-ray, then images. all images from all hospitals of Moscow get into the data center which is located in our Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine and after that radiologists describe these images, make reports and in one, two or sometimes a little bit more hours a doctor and patient already has results of the examination. Next slide please. Okay, so it is possible due to centralized healthcare system, it takes several, it took several years to centralize data to centralize all radiological descriptions and now it is possible, it was possible to start Moscow experiment in implementing artificial intelligence in healthcare. So we started this experiment in 2020 and we had a lot of difficulties, a lot of questions at the beginning because it’s new technology and there were no answers how we could use it and avoid different risks of artificial intelligence. But generally we managed to overcome all these risks of artificial intelligence in healthcare. So today I’d like to tell you about three components, three main components which were the key components for this success. The first component is data. Data sets, high quality data sets are very important for artificial intelligence training and testing. So what is data sets? It is a set of radiological studies with the report and using these data sets it’s possible to train artificial intelligence to find some kind of pathology like pneumonia or cancer for example and it is possible to test artificial intelligence. Basically for data, following one of the main principles, organized storage and organized collection of data. The second principle is artificial intelligence scientists, researchers, developers all over the world said about artificial intelligence, about its power, someone said that it is possible that artificial intelligence could be used and doctors will stay without work. But now we see that it is not so. Artificial intelligence is a great help for doctors. It could make measurements. it could help doctor to find some pathology, but now artificial intelligence can not replace doctors at all. So that’s why is to monitor artificial intelligence work. And we developed and successfully used life cycle for checking the quality of artificial intelligence. We do it regularly every month and we make an assessment of artificial intelligence to be sure that medical care is of high quality. And this life cycle also helps us to improve artificial intelligence because we can find mistakes of artificial intelligence and we could change these AI services and improve their quality. And the third principle is ethics. It is the basic principles of medical ethics which were used for many centuries and we still follow them. So one of the main principles is privacy of patients, is safety of patients and patient’s confidentiality. So artificial intelligence could improve quality of healthcare, but without following ethics, I think it is impossible to use it because it can bring more harm for patients than benefits. So, due to these three components, high quality datasets, the monitoring of artificial intelligence and the third component is ethical principles, we could provide for patients a very simple way of radiological studies. You see it here, so it is as usual, undergoing radiological examination, then doctor describes, write a report, and after that patient and physicians get the results of these studies. And here on the step three, you see that now doctors, radiologists, get two images for every patient. First is a native image, and the second is an image which is processed by artificial intelligence. So that’s why it is possible to use artificial intelligence and benefit from it. And what are the key achievements, key results of implementation of artificial intelligence? Here you see some facts, but generally speaking, there are three main achievements. The first is improved quality of healthcare. The second is eased access to health services. And the last principle is enhanced safety of patients. And I’d like to show you one more slide about artificial intelligence, how it works. You see, we have more than 50 AI solutions in the Moscow. And they could detect different types of pathology on different types of studies, like x-ray, computer tomography, or MRI, for example. And to conclude my presentation, I’d like to say that artificial intelligence, like Internet of Bodies, it’s our possible future, which could help us to live longer and to be healthier during our life. So, I’d like to invite you to visit our center to learn more about artificial intelligence in healthcare. And it’s very easy to visit us, and you could organize a visit. We will be happy to see you in our center. Thank you very much.

Alina Ustinova: This was a very interesting presentation, I guess. People learned a lot about it. And maybe a small question before we move to the next speaker. In your opinion, in your experience, how do you think the introduction of this device or integration into the human body will affect the human evolution? Like, for example, will it be part robots? Just a futuristic question.

Lev Pistrenin: Yes, thank you for the interesting question. I think you are right. Maybe in the future, we will look like robots a little bit. Now we don’t know all technologies, there is a very interesting thought that now, on a short period of time, we tend to overestimate technologies and for a longer period of time we tend to underestimate technologies. So after 20 or 30 years, maybe we have bionic eyes or something like that and yes, we would do our work faster, I think, and we can get a lot of benefits. But I’m sure that using of all these devices should be controlled first of all by the doctors because these devices never should be harmful for people.

Alina Ustinova: Okay, thank you very much for your answer. Now we move to the next speaker and we’ll try to understand how monitoring devices are actually making people’s lives easier, especially in the remote areas where the hospital is not an option. For some people, Igor, please, the floor is yours. Thank you.

Igor Sergeyev: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I will present the state of the home care sector in terms of our implementation, our available and available diagnostics and vital sign monitoring devices. The pandemic COVID-19 has become a catalyst for the development and education and production of individual devices. for the monitoring with Alzheimer’s. Russian Federation enormous territory and affects this clinical institution. Sometimes like I do for the patients, there’s these kinds of devices, the only solution from patients condition monitoring. Such device include a range of CO2, ECG, and aspiration recorders, abnormal glucose and cholesterol levels analyzed, and another devices. Innovative companies of Russian Federation including Skolkovo Residence introduced this development of personalized medicine, implementing software solution based on them, including artificial intelligence to improve their level of diagnostics of reduced voluntarily among the adult population. Currently, the registry of such solution in the Russian Federation includes software, natural network system, care mentor, IEEE. This is the website, http://carementor.ru. Software sales, websites, http://sales.ii. Software artificial intelligence systems for analysis of cardiology studies, websites, t-stars.ru. System for supporting in medical decisions, electronic clinical pharmacologist, these websites, www.sp.upb.com. Software system for supporting medical decisions, webioMEDS, webioMEDS.ii. The rapid development for monitoring functional indicators began at the turn of the 2000s. widespread implementation in the system of high-tech care began much later. An example for such projects implementation in the Russian Federation can be Medicare and innovation of professional intelligence systems. Development and implementation of head indicator remote monitoring services will provide undeniable advantage for all interested participants since the use of the services will allow to reduce the level of monetary and disability of the population due to early directions of development cardiovascular risk and endocrine diseases in citizens risk disease acceleration. And the process of continuous monitoring and analysis of patient’s health indicators to ensure doctor’s emergency identification in case of the patient’s monitoring indicators critical deviations. To increase the number of patients directed by observation to increase the quality of medical care for a population without this need for frequent visits to medical institutions to reduce the cost of medical institution by reduction or the need for stabilization. To improve medical knowledge based by processing and analyzing the alleged amount of patient medical data. My report completed. Thank you for attention. I hope you’ve passed questions.

Alina Ustinova: For the presentation I guess that you’re right in telling that sometimes when the medical service are not available. It is better to have some device that can track your medical conditions and you’ll be able to send it to the healthcare institution to understand what kind of illness you have. And that’s why it causes another risk, as we’re going to talk about, cybersecurity risk. Because we know that we can talk about data security, but what about human security? For example, sometimes when we speak about internet of bodies, we need to understand that if something is integrated into your body, that means that you are a computer yourself and you can be hacked as a computer. So the main question is how to get rid of it. Please, Irina, if you can say something. How can we manage the cybersecurity risk into cyber human risk, maybe some kind of that?

Irina Pantina: Thank you, Alina. Take my headphone off. Let me start from maybe just introduction into the types and classification of different types of internet of bodies. I would highlight this from a perspective of whether it can influence you as a human or your body or not. And the first types of devices that also need to be protected are so-called wearable devices. And their main feature is to promote the data to a central storage, to a central data house. And the main risks arise from these types of devices and data transferring as data leak. And all the risks that we know about data leak are applicable for these types of devices, for this group of things. Another group is more interesting from a cybersecurity perspective as a group of devices that could interact with a central processor and that could send a manageable influence on your body. For example, we do not expect that cochlear implant could manage the tone and could send a signal to your ear, even if you are deaf, but it can manage and it could change your behavior. Next example that Igor mentioned and devices that Igor mentioned, insulin pump. When you can change the dosage on remote, then you can influence and you can make different injuries into the bodies. And all of you remember the fresh example of September terrorist attack with smartphones and pagers in Lebanon and Syria. And that’s an example how this transferring signal would damage big groups of people. And if you are talking about widely spread technologies, so for the people with the different types of disease, they could be an interesting and a very important targets for ethics, for criminals of different types of criminals. And you know, this example, when this types of cyber risk weren’t fixed, when one of the heads of US get a pacemaker as an implant, asks to turn it off from a remote management due to the risk, when he got this chair, a very high level chair, he asked to turn off this remote managing due to the risks being attacked and being hacked with criminals. So, and from this perspective, we should talk about two types of influence, the data leakage and the total control of doing impossible and doing an acceptable event. We name it an acceptable event and we have to prevent such an events. using different types of organizational, technical, instrumental features and practices. And let’s talk about what we can get in case we do not think of the cybersecurity risks in terms of Internet of Bodies. The first one is we’ve got the credibility gap of the final users, of the end users of these technologies. And as Igor mentioned about providing healthcare for remote regions, for different types of people who can get healthcare fast and quite close to the place of living, it become a vital problem for them. And it arise a lot of questions around that. And we have choice in between whether we can fix this risk and face them and find ways how to work with them. And on the other hand, to ignore that and face the problems of lacking healthcare, impossibility to help people to live their best life. And as Alina mentioned in her introductory speech, Internet of Bodies is kind of part of Internet of Thing topic and it arise a good point for us because we know a lot to do with the Internet of Things from different points of view. in terms of what every actor has to do, managing cyber risks. And as we are here on United Nations floor and we are sharing our multi-stakeholderism framework, I got some inputs for every participant, and every group of the participant from this perspective. Well, what have the producers and providers of internet of what it can do in this topic? The first one is to think of cybersecurity as a vital question, as a very important point. And as we think about cyber security, about governmental and environmental and social points that are important for every company, then the cybersecurity is crucial for the company as well. So if we can place it in one row, we can talk about ESGC concept, the ESGC framework as a good practice for managing companies. Another point is to test the devices they provide to the end users, to the consumers, and using different practices and inviting the best analysts worldwide. For that, we’ve got some platforms that are well-known as back-bounded platforms that could help to test in circumstances quite close to real ethics, quite close to real life. and techniques that criminals can use. And it helps to improve the systems. It helps to make it more sustainable and applicable for end users. Another one is, another group is cybersecurity providers. They got their own responsibility in improving their own skills, their own expertise in testing internet of bodies with their own focus on specific of it, that it’s not just something that implemented somewhere so far, but it is implemented in the individual’s body. And it has an influence and has an impact on the person. And the second one to provide specific solutions for protecting, it could be software, hardware items, it could be processes and organizational features. All the instruments that we have should be included into the consulting services by the experts in cybersecurity. And the third pillar is governments and authorities. And I think they have to do, they used to. So establishing the rules for how to use these devices, how to let them enter the markets and how to be affordable for different groups of people. Without any dependencies. So, and to conclude my. I would want to make one point that if we do not take into account the cyber risk or if we underestimate it in this exact topics, in this exact topic Internet of bodies, then we have to pay a very high price. And that’s the human life. Thank you.

Alina Ustinova: You covered a lot of topics that are actually kind of at risk today. And just to shoot like a quick question, you mentioned lots of cases where the devices were hacked and like the very bad things happened when the human lives were lost. Can you talk a little bit about like the human sanity, you know, when, for example, there was an episode in Black Mirror, where a person was wearing the lenses, and his memories were not changed but he was caught on that and repeating them correctly. Is it just a point to regulate the usage of the IEB devices by humans themselves so they don’t harm themselves with them, or is it just a point of free will, and we should leave the fate of human in his own hands, just like like that. I think. Thank you for a very important question.

Irina Pantina: I would say that the individuals on the one hand side are rather smart, and they can understand what impact and what influence has a different devices to their lives from a positive side of usage, but they underestimate the risks. It must be. From my perspective, it must be it must be open discussion of these topics started by the experts. And there must be a balance of the views that enthusiasts who can try and who understand the risks to discover the steps that we do not know at the moment. Some risks arise and could be clear after a period of usage, after entering different situations. And in this sense, so-called ethical hackers could play a very important role because they can test from unpredictable ways, from unpredictable points of views to identify the risks, to find a way how to fix them and how to provide the secure solutions as a result. Thank you.

Alina Ustinova: Very much. Yes, I guess you’re right in a point. And now we need to also cover another risk that is not always recognized probably properly when we speak about using this device, because when we use devices like phone or a tablet, we do not actually see the difference between different marks of the phone or maybe the usage, but if we put a device into the human body, it will be seen. So the main question is won’t some IEB devices cause the segregation of people? Like for example, you will have the device that is very costly and a very high price within the human body. And he has the pros of the… on his lies that the person with the cheaper devices doesn’t so how can we avoid this Gabrielle if you can share with us your point of view.

Gabriella Marcelja: Yes, thank you. Thank you very much for for inviting to this panel. So, in terms of segregation you actually are hitting the jackpots you know with this question because we will have to tired future you know so the enhanced people, and the unincorporated so those who are kind of living like our regular normal life as we do right now. So, when we talk about body augmentations powered by AI, and the Internet of Bodies technologies, such as again, neural neural implants biometric prosthetics and so on. So this is actually technologies could widen the existing gap in the social economical classes. So this is something that, you know, we need to understand, because we will definitely have advantages in intelligence and strength in health, maybe So this is for sure, rising a few ethical questions going forward. Perhaps we should think also on how to answer some of the topics related to access to augmentation so should body encasement be treated as a basic luxury, sorry basic right or luxury topics about authenticity so will humanity actually lose the line between natural and synthetic existence. You do also have topics related to decision autonomy as was mentioned also by by the colleague here before. So who actually decides what is acceptable right body augmentation is that the government is corporations individuals. doctors right so like all of these are actually topics that need to be discussed because we need to think as a patient centered healthcare going forward right so like who is the ultimate decision maker of course it’s us individuals but the doctors are the one with the knowledge but on the other hand like they’re have the knowledge of the body the technology is most probably a private owned entity which knows the technology so they will sell the ideas to the doctors so it’s it’s a very complex i would say setting and the ecosystem of course will be regulated by the government so this is like something that we need to in general think when it comes to you know this future social economics integration that is going to happen there is no way out of it whenever you keep on getting new technologies and and you try to do something new for sure some impact one way or another is going to happen so here we can also mention the so-called ai-powered workers so we’re not talking about the robots but enhanced humans that could outperform normal workers like us right now so eventually you won’t need eventually a lot of vitamins or something i don’t know anti-stress pills or vitamin d you know every day so perhaps we will you know be eventually a little bit more faster smarter in that sense we also have then you know the access to health augmenting implants so this could you know of course raise the question of wealth right so it will create divides so the augmented elite if you will and the unprivileged bio-traditionalist let’s put it that way so of course you can always pick but if you want to kind of power up perhaps some people will choose a new way of existence. And we don’t know how is this going to be perceived. Is this going to be perceived as something cool? Or is this going to be perceived as, oh, you’re sick? So it’s a little bit also of this type of thinking that we could, in general, discuss. And I can’t say that I’ve been on many panels that were discussing these type of issues. So I’m more than happy that we keep on discussing these type of things. And in general, global inequality will definitely be a topic. So wealthy nations will adopt augmentation tech faster. So we will see a marginalized group of countries. And we definitely need to eventually ensure equal access if this is in the interest of the patient. And on this point, if I may, I would just continue also a little bit on the harm that these technologies can do. Because we do need to understand that the IOB devices, like, again, smart lenses, are capable, for example, of recording everything you see. So this could actually revolutionize health care and law enforcement as well, but also pose major threats. Because we have the surveillance and privacy risks on one side. Because these type of lenses could easily be some covered surveillance tools. And without regulation in this sense, they could for sure record people without their consent. Enable, of course, governments, companies to track citizens every move. We have different, we have this that is already doing all of this. And now if we put, of course, this on our bodies, this is just going to implement it even more. Create, of course, deepfakes, realities, manipulating basically just some video content recording through these lenses. Eventually, any type of exploitation that you can think of from corporate manipulation, the corporate world is focused on profit. So we need to make profit in order to be sustainable. Because otherwise, we need to lay people off. And it’s not a good way of doing business. So recording users’ environments. course, like, deliver, you know, ultra targeted ads. So you have meta, or I mean, with Facebook, Instagram, and all the similar platforms that of course, are using the data that we see right now, as their actual capital. But this is also, you know, an open door for blackmail, social control by hackers also who can access footage, and can, of course, exploit these private moments of individuals. So in this, I would say, context, we definitely need to, you know, think about the moral implications, and think about some comprehensive governance strategies that definitely must ensure ethical approval of devices, strict licensing, I would say and penalties for any misuse, and just very transparent algorithms that monitor how data is stored, and where shared access, so all of this, right now, AI has still big problems to solve. So we hope in the intelligence of the experts and the analysts that that are working on that, to actually, you know, work on all the black box and all of the issues that AI has right now, and the biases that it create, create. So this is, in any case, something that I would say rises, cyber security, and AI driven privacy violations and cyber crime risks, ecosystem that need to be monitored, and definitely talked to before, you know, we become kind of guinea pigs, and we don’t have like, a clear understanding of where can this go? And what do we do? So we for sure are individuals and patients for our doctors, we will for sure be the ultimate decision makers, we will for sure sign papers that we understand the risks, there is no other way out of this. But at the same time, the supply chain from the idea to the development and then to the implantation in the body definitely needs to be monitored. And for sure also the manufacturing and the understanding of how can you fix if something breaks. So where do you go like, oh, my implant is not working, I’m glitching, where do I go? We have like some, you know, centers like, like phone centers where you just like go and repair yourself. So this is a little bit of the supply chain that eventually would need to be thought of together with all the ethical implications at hand.

Alina Ustinova: You actually covered lots of things that we’re trying to understand with this new emerging technologies and one you mentioned that, yes, we have phones and we use it every day of our lives. And if it will be put inside our bodies, it will definitely change. So I will go to James and ask him to start with that question. How do you think, James, what, how can a person be offline if a device put in him make him online like constantly? And please share with us your input on how Internet of Bodies will be developed in the future.

James Nathan Adjartey Amattey: Yes, thank you very much. My name is James. I’m talking from Ghana. I do hope I’m clear. Now, Internet of Bodies is a very, it’s not new, but it’s, it’s one of the emerging components of Internet of Things, which embodies the integration of chips into regular devices to be able to track, collect and analyze data. Now in, in this new realm, for example, when we look at health, we are looking at the three phases of health, that’s preventive, curative, and then protective, right? So, for example, when we look at a disease like asthma, a doctor wants to know what the patient’s triggers are, when the triggers happen, how often they happen. And sometimes, all of that consultation cannot be done in the hospital. Now, there are certain cases of autoimmune diseases that do not have any known, should I say, any known cure. So, the use of IOB can help doctors and then help hospitals and health facilities to be able to determine what causes it, how long, what the triggers are, and what can be done to prevent it. Now, unfortunately, there’s life after the hospital, and the person has a different life other than the condition they are faced. So, it is very difficult for you to constantly track them and put a cost on it, put them online. Because of certain risks, we’ve, other members of the panel have spoken about cybersecurity risk. Other members of the panel have spoken about data risks, but I would look more at social risks, right? So, for example, we are looking at a problem of dependence, right, how are we going to make sure that the patient does not become too dependent or over-reliant on the implant, right? So, for example, unless it is an artificial limb, that actually helps the patient to walk. If it’s a pill, so there is this, should I say, there’s this name. of pills that have cameras, sensors that stay in the body and then actually record internal body action. And we want to ask ourselves, how long is that allowed to stay in the body? How much of an influence does it have on things like genome editing and DNA configuration and DNA programming and how much of an effect can that alter the unique character of the person? So if you’re, you know, and also what kind of data are these things sending? Right, so we do have something we call the CRISPR-Cas9, which is a form of genome editing. That uses bacterial immune system data to modify DNA and the DNA of living cells. So that means that currently there is data and there’s research and there are certain elements of IOE that can modify that component of your DNA. And that modification then leads to modification of character, modification of behavior, modification of influences, and that could have very long-term effects. Now, one of those issues is an issue of manipulation and social engineering, where there’s something we call a hyper-personalization syndrome. Now, currently, if you are, let’s say you and your friend are having a conversation on WhatsApp or any of these social media platforms, when you jump onto- another platform, you could just see an ad of, oh, you know, the what you were talking about with your friend. Now, how about this noun going into your body and then actually understanding your feeling of what are you feeling currently? That could have very diverse issues. So, for example, when we talk about suicide and mental health, we want to know that how often can a device manipulate and influence suicidal thoughts, and how often can it manipulate the person to take on these suicidal thoughts. So, this real-time modification of the DNA can lead to real-time manipulation, whereby the person is online, or should I say the person is offline, but then there’s an internal online modification. Now, we do have what we call data breaches, right? So, data breaches sort of happen when the data that’s supposed to be stored in a particular place has been given unauthorized access to by a third party, either through hacking, breach force, or, you know, the use of spyware. Now, if it’s an external software system, you know, there could be preventive measures that could be implemented, but if it’s in the body, and then the body is now being misconfigured, how do we reconfigure that? Now, also, we have to look at things like, when we talk about devices and software, we have to look at things like updates. Now, updates are a very thin line when it comes to human computer interaction. Now, if your phone is updating on its own, it has the ability to influence the behavior of applications and also the data that they use, right? And also the permissions these applications have. So if you are looking at internet of things and internet of bodies, we have to be able to design, should I say updates mechanisms and frameworks that do not have adverse issues or adverse effects on the body. We have to look at compatibility. We have to look at biology. We have to look at the device version and that, you know, those things are things that are currently not regulated. I know in the health field, you know, it might be a bit different. I’m not too much of a doctor, but from the, should I say, national regulatory framework, I am here to see a comprehensive study and a comprehensive, should I say, a comprehensive law that caters for devices and their updates and then the changes these updates will bring to the body. Now, all of these data that we are doing and all of these real-time tracking of person that is online, even though the person exists offline can lead to things like predictive profiling. So currently in analytics, you do what we call personal definition where you are looking at the psychographical and nature of the person. So what the person thinks. what a person feels or influences their buying decisions. Now with IOB and then DNA programming, there’s this ability of companies or people who have malicious intentions to use the data that our body provides them through these devices to now profile us and then use things like predictive analysis to then determine what’s can, you know, what somebody is more likely to buy. So it’s now takes it from, you know, device and marketing strategies to now tweaking devices that are in your body. So for example, we have the, the new venom of, should I say, wearable devices, especially for the eye. And these have the tendency to pupillate the iris and then send different signals to the brain. And now these things then lead to what we call attack on cognitive security. Once you bring the brain into the picture, then you now have an attack on the cognitive behavior of the person. So you are now going to exploit cognitive biases. You now have to deal with brain computer interface vulnerabilities. So for example, we have issues of a coin that is being implanted into the brain to allow differently abled people to be able to interact with computers. to be able to move things. Now how much of do we have to create a balance between re-enabling that person and integrating that person and also being that person to be independent of that device and you know having the personal intuition or the personal drive to be able to turn on and off right. So I think that these are some of the things that we could look at in terms of how can a person be able to turn off some of these devices that are in them, how much power do they have over their devices, is it a matter of manufacturer versus patients and who wins or if there’s a an issue with the government and now the government now becomes a third party between the manufacturer and the patients, who who’s going to win in the ability to determine how when and where their data is used. So

Alina Ustinova: thank you very much. I guess you covered lots of issues and it’s very interesting to listen to you and you mentioned actually the thing called genome changing and I guess it’s very interesting aspect that no one said before that and before we move to the Q&A session I have a question for every speaker. You know yesterday Henry Kissinger said a very interesting thing. He said that the future of humanity eventually and to survive humanity needs to have a bias into this with AI. So maybe you can give comments. Do you agree with this point of view? Do you think that eventually we will just become part AI, part So human, etc. And then we move to Q&A. But just a short answer, like, who wants to start? Irina, please.

Irina Pantina: Let me start first. Let me be the first. I believe that humans are smart enough to implement AI to the fields that they can get the positive response, the positive impact, rather than the negative ones. And we have enough power at different levels to fix the negative. From time to time, I’m sure we will have some examples of misusage of this technology. But at the same time, in parallel, we will have examples how to fix it.

Alina Ustinova: Does anyone want to add something and tell his opinion or hers? Gabriella?

Gabriella Marcelja: I’ll be just very quick. I think this is, you know, a philosophical question, you know, where do we want to go as humans? And perhaps at the level of Kissinger, perhaps at the level, you know, global strategists, like you already are trying to understand what else, right? So perhaps this is a way to go. I think it’s an inevitable evolution of the technology. Because once we reach a certain limit of development, whether it’s a country or company, people need to think of, you know, need to sit, think, and then decide, where do we go now? So it’s just a matter of understanding the possible. futures, and if we like those options or not. At this moment, if everyone is feeling excited about this, I think the humanity wants to try it out, not knowing what will happen. So it’s more than the curiosity inside of us that wants to keep moving. Oh, let me see what will happen, even though we most probably won’t be happy with the result. But it’s just human nature to keep pushing in the known when we already have everything. So I think we definitely need to fix the I would say the basic problems of the world. But since the technology has gone so much forward, and we’re, you know, of course, there is still like the count quantum computing and all the cybersecurity issues that come with it, like, but we are still very far from that we’re far from, you know, getting all the AI chips running and so so many things for humans to do. But they think this is just like an additional, you know, curiosity, that just people want to see happening. And, and we, I guess, will live long enough to see what happens.

Alina Ustinova: Okay, now we’re ready to if no one has anything to add, we’re getting to the questions. So if everyone has any questions, please raise your hand. And if anyone in the line has any questions to write it and Anna will read your question to our speaker. So do we have any questions? No one has any questions. Okay, I will ask my question, which I’m very interested at. We covered actually lots of aspects of the time, but I, I like the futuristic works of art, especially in terms of when we see it in games. in the movies. And in the future, they actually show that we have a very gloomy future if we come to use these technologies. For example, like in many games, you show that if you have the medical insurance that is covered more, that is richer, and you have, as I said before, the implants that are costly, you will have the medical attention you need and you will live more than the person who doesn’t have it. And how do you think, maybe it’s a very cynical question, but will the Internet of Bodies eventually let that to the people that some companies, not government, will regulate who will live and who will die depending on which kind of implants it has in their own body? Do we’re moving from the government regulation to the company regulations in terms of the technology? So if anyone has anything to add, you are welcome to add something

James Nathan Adjartey Amattey: to that. Yes, if I may. Yes, I think it has to go hand in hand. We cannot just regulate the companies and leave the governments. The governments also have to regulate themselves. So we, because in this era where we have a lot of wars and just interruptions to global peace, you know, governments can now use some of these things as tools to be able to program, to be able to, shall I say, reprogram people and then give them extra abilities. And that, and, you know, it’s just a matter of limiting how far we can go with this, right? Because we do not want the case where it’s an open… play field, and anybody can do anything. So in one hand, you have to regulate the companies who are producing this thing. The other hand, you also have the government also has to regulate itself to prevent itself from, you know, using, you know, this as a, as a weapon rather than as a tool, right? Because if you take a knife, a knife in the kitchen is used for cutting vegetables, but when you put the knife into the hands of a killer, you know, it becomes a dangerous tool. So the technology in of itself is not dangerous, but once it ends up with in the hands of people with malicious intent, it can, you know, you know, have that dangerous elements to it. So I think that the co-regulation of both governments at the national level, that’s countries themselves, and then also international bodies that they are part of, like, for example, the UN, the ITU, and all these international regulatory bodies, it’s up to them to be able to co-regulate themselves, and then also the governments that form out of them, to be able to make sure that the technology does not go out of hand. Thank you.

Alina Ustinova: Gabriella, you wanted to add?

Gabriella Marcelja: Just very quick, but I just want to draw a parallel here, because I think what your question is asking, who will live and who will die, you know, who is deciding on this, I think, you know, this is already happening. So if you think of just the line in hospitals to get a body transplant, right? So it’s the same thing right now. So you have a line, and you have a line, so you need to wait. Whether you’re, you know, a billionaire, or whether you have nothing, you have a line. And so this is a little bit of the body transplant parallel that I think it’s very, very similar. So it’s just a matter of augmentation, maybe fixing a problem rather than having a new organ transplanted. Because, of course, from how I see it, we will have, I don’t want to say which sector is going to come up with this, but I already can imagine, we will have fake implants. So we will have people that will do this and sell you, like in the gray economy, hey, can you sell me like, today is something else, and tomorrow will be the same product, but in this gray economy, it will happen. It’s like inevitable. So people will try to copy, people will try to, you know, do business in a way, and they will produce harm. So it’s inevitable for this to happen. And in any case, it’s like a line that, okay, you don’t have money for like the good quality products, no problem. You have, you know, a cheap version that, yeah, maybe you will die tomorrow, but hey, you know, this is your chance of getting augmented. So I think this is going to happen, like if we go into this sector here, because as with body transplants today, yes, you have a line, but, you know, my specialization is in criminal law. And so I do understand the underneath unfortunate situation that we have. And we do have, you know, criminal organizations and et cetera, who do work on skipping the line, if you will, right. So this will happen. And I think it’s already happening, you know, in the system we have now with the problems currently that we have now. So it’s just going to be, you know, the problem is going to be augmented, let’s put it that way.

Alina Ustinova: Lev, you wanted to add something?

Lev Pistrenin: Yes, thank you. I’d like to add about control. I think that you are totally right. Now we see that private companies have a lot of control on our phones, on our devices, and sometimes this control is much more stronger than governments could provide. So I think in this case it should be a balance for control and control should be from all sides, all participants of this process. Private companies first, government the second, and people the third. As it was said yesterday on panel discussion, only knowledge is a power and they could help us to survive in the future. So I think we should study about new technologies and we should be aware of how to control and manage them.

Alina Ustinova: Do we have any questions now? You have? Can you please give the mic to the person? Thank you. Really interesting topics.

Audience: Given the work I do, I think often of the risks and the challenges for controlling these types of technologies as well as harnessing their power. So I guess my question is, do we feel that there is enough understanding of the technology to be able to create committees, organizations, frameworks to make sure we can make the most of them? of what IOB can enable while still protecting the individuals who ultimately will bear the risks of the implant and as well as the benefits but so do you know what I mean I think I want to understand do we have the knowledge and capacity to as an international community harness the benefits as well as make sure we are able to understand and control the risks of the technology

Alina Ustinova: basically asking do we know do we know do we know enough to so not make no harm so from does anyone has left please

James Nathan Adjartey Amattey: maybe I can answer that a bit yes so I think it depends on where you’re coming from so for example I live in Ghana I’m from Africa where we are mostly when it comes to IOB we are mostly consumers you know most of the wearables we get are imported and sometimes it’s it’s seen as a lifestyle thing where for example there’s this new trend of BBLs that is seen as a lifestyle thing but people do not totally understand you know the implications technological the people don’t understand where this is coming from and where this can lead right so I think we need to position or to put more effort in community awareness raising awareness education on you know what what is truly at stake here and how best we can move forward because like like Anna said some of these things are inevitable they will definitely happen it’s just a matter of are we ready for it, you know, when it happens, or are we going to allow it to overtake us? And now, you know, we have to play catch up on, you know, things like regulation, things like trying to control the spread and the production of these things. You know, much like social media, we relaxed a bit and then we had to play catch up. I think a lot of that is also can be seen in the AI space. So we want to be able to make sure that we are ahead of the trend, which is very difficult to do, I must say. But, you know, we have to start from somewhere. We have to hope that we stay ahead because once this overtakes us, it’s actually part of the human body. It was very difficult to get rid of, you know, just by a policy or a regulation.

Alina Ustinova: Thank you. James, if you want to add something.

Lev Pistrenin: Thank you. Is it okay? I think now it’s not possible to have all knowledge of all the world because there are many different specialties. And, for example, of artificial intelligence. So, if doctors use artificial intelligence, only them could not be confident that artificial intelligence is a safety. So, and, for example, engineers, they also could not be confident that artificial intelligence is safety because it is multidisciplinary. projects and technologies. I think if we want to have some control from our side, from people, the future is for multidisciplinary teams, groups, committees, or even it’s very good to have some friends with knowledges in different spheres. And so communication is our key opportunity to survive.

Alina Ustinova: Thank you very much. I guess we’re out of time. So thank you for a wonderful discussion. I guess we covered lots of aspects. So if you want to change context with the listeners, please welcome. Thank you, our online speakers as well, who joined us today. And have a good time here for the first. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Agreement Points

IoB technologies can improve healthcare

Lev Pestrenin

Igor Sergeyev

Gabriella Marcelja

AI and IoB can improve healthcare quality and access

IoB devices enable remote patient monitoring and early disease detection

IoB implants and wearables can enhance medical diagnostics and treatment

The speakers agree that Internet of Bodies technologies have significant potential to enhance healthcare through improved diagnostics, remote monitoring, and better access to medical services.

IoB technologies pose cybersecurity risks

Irina Pantina

Gabriella Marcelja

IoB devices are vulnerable to hacking and data breaches

IoB technologies pose risks of surveillance and privacy violations

Both speakers highlight the cybersecurity vulnerabilities associated with IoB technologies, emphasizing the risks of hacking, data breaches, and privacy violations.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the need for robust regulatory frameworks and security measures to protect users and ensure responsible development of IoB technologies.

Irina Pantina

James Nathan Adjartey Amattey

Cybersecurity measures must be implemented to protect IoB users

Regulation is needed to ensure equal access and prevent misuse of IoB

Both speakers highlight the importance of addressing potential social inequalities and raising public awareness about the implications of IoB technologies.

Gabriella Marcelja

James Nathan Adjartey Amattey

IoB may widen socioeconomic gaps and create “augmented elites”

Public awareness and education about IoB is crucial

Unexpected Consensus

Multi-stakeholder approach to IoB governance

Irina Pantina

Lev Pestrenin

James Nathan Adjartey Amattey

Multi-stakeholder cooperation is needed to govern IoB responsibly

Balancing innovation and risk mitigation for IoB is challenging

Regulation is needed to ensure equal access and prevent misuse of IoB

Despite coming from different backgrounds (cybersecurity, healthcare, and regional perspective), these speakers unexpectedly agree on the need for a collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach to governing IoB technologies, balancing innovation with risk mitigation.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the potential of IoB to improve healthcare, the need for robust cybersecurity measures, the importance of regulation and multi-stakeholder governance, and the necessity of addressing potential social implications.

Consensus level

There is a moderate level of consensus among the speakers, particularly on the need for responsible development and governance of IoB technologies. This consensus suggests a shared recognition of both the potential benefits and risks associated with IoB, implying a cautious but optimistic approach to future development and implementation of these technologies.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to regulating IoB technologies

Irina Pantina

James Nathan Adjartey Amattey

Cybersecurity measures must be implemented to protect IoB users

Regulation is needed to ensure equal access and prevent misuse of IoB

While both speakers agree on the need for regulation, Pantina emphasizes cybersecurity measures and a multi-stakeholder approach, while Amattey focuses more on ensuring equal access and preventing misuse through government regulation.

Unexpected Differences

Perspective on the inevitability of IoB adoption

Gabriella Marcelja

James Nathan Adjartey Amattey

IoB may widen socioeconomic gaps and create “augmented elites”

Public awareness and education about IoB is crucial

While not explicitly stated as a disagreement, there seems to be an unexpected difference in perspective on the inevitability of IoB adoption. Marcelja appears to view the adoption of IoB as somewhat inevitable, focusing on its potential consequences, while Amattey emphasizes the need for education and awareness, implying that adoption can be more controlled or guided.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the approach to regulating IoB technologies, the balance between innovation and risk mitigation, and the potential social implications of IoB adoption.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers appears to be moderate. While there is general consensus on the potential benefits and risks of IoB technologies, speakers differ in their emphasis on specific aspects and proposed solutions. These differences reflect the complex and multifaceted nature of IoB technologies, highlighting the need for interdisciplinary approaches and continued dialogue to address the challenges and opportunities presented by IoB.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers recognize the potential social implications of IoB technologies, but they propose different solutions. Marcelja highlights the risk of widening socioeconomic gaps, while Amattey emphasizes the need for public awareness and education to address these issues.

Gabriella Marcelja

James Nathan Adjartey Amattey

IoB may widen socioeconomic gaps and create “augmented elites”

Public awareness and education about IoB is crucial

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the need for robust regulatory frameworks and security measures to protect users and ensure responsible development of IoB technologies.

Irina Pantina

James Nathan Adjartey Amattey

Cybersecurity measures must be implemented to protect IoB users

Regulation is needed to ensure equal access and prevent misuse of IoB

Both speakers highlight the importance of addressing potential social inequalities and raising public awareness about the implications of IoB technologies.

Gabriella Marcelja

James Nathan Adjartey Amattey

IoB may widen socioeconomic gaps and create “augmented elites”

Public awareness and education about IoB is crucial

Key Takeaways

Resolutions and Action Items

Unresolved Issues

Suggested Compromises

Now we see that artificial intelligence, like Internet of Bodies, it’s our possible future, which could help us to live longer and to be healthier during our life.

speaker

Lev Pestrenin

reason

This comment frames AI and IoB technologies in a positive light as tools for improving human health and longevity, setting an optimistic tone for the discussion.

impact

It prompted further exploration of the potential benefits and risks of these technologies in healthcare and beyond.

Sometimes when we speak about internet of bodies, we need to understand that if something is integrated into your body, that means that you are a computer yourself and you can be hacked as a computer.

speaker

Alina Ustinova

reason

This insight highlights a key security concern with IoB devices, framing humans with implants as potentially hackable systems.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards cybersecurity risks and ethical concerns around IoB technologies.

So establishing the rules for how to use these devices, how to let them enter the markets and how to be affordable for different groups of people. Without any dependencies.

speaker

Irina Pantina

reason

This comment emphasizes the need for regulatory frameworks and accessibility considerations for IoB technologies.

impact

It broadened the conversation to include policy and equity issues surrounding IoB adoption.

So wealthy nations will adopt augmentation tech faster. So we will see a marginalized group of countries. And we definitely need to eventually ensure equal access if this is in the interest of the patient.

speaker

Gabriella Marcelja

reason

This insight raises important concerns about global inequality in access to IoB technologies.

impact

It prompted discussion of the potential for IoB to exacerbate existing social and economic divides.

Now, if it’s an external software system, you know, there could be preventive measures that could be implemented, but if it’s in the body, and then the body is now being misconfigured, how do we reconfigure that?

speaker

James Nathan Adjartey Amattey

reason

This comment highlights unique challenges of IoB devices compared to external technologies, particularly around updates and fixes.

impact

It deepened the discussion on technical and ethical challenges specific to internal IoB devices.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting both the potential benefits and significant risks of Internet of Bodies technologies. The conversation evolved from initial optimism about health benefits to deeper exploration of cybersecurity concerns, regulatory needs, global inequality issues, and unique technical challenges of internal devices. This progression reflected a nuanced, multi-faceted examination of IoB’s implications for individuals and society.

How will the integration of Internet of Bodies devices affect human evolution?

speaker

Alina Ustinova

explanation

This question explores the long-term implications of IoB technology on human biology and society.

How can we manage cybersecurity risks related to Internet of Bodies devices?

speaker

Alina Ustinova

explanation

This addresses the critical need for protecting individuals from potential hacking or unauthorized access to their implanted devices.

How can we prevent segregation or inequality caused by different levels of access to IoB devices?

speaker

Alina Ustinova

explanation

This question raises concerns about potential social and economic divides created by advanced medical technologies.

How can a person be offline if a device implanted in them keeps them constantly online?

speaker

Alina Ustinova

explanation

This explores the implications of constant connectivity on privacy and personal autonomy.

How can we ensure ethical approval, strict licensing, and penalties for misuse of IoB devices?

speaker

Gabriella Marcelja

explanation

This area of research is crucial for developing comprehensive governance strategies for IoB technologies.

How can we create a balance between re-enabling differently abled people through IoB devices and maintaining their independence?

speaker

James Nathan Adjartey Amattey

explanation

This question addresses the ethical considerations of enhancing human capabilities while preserving individual autonomy.

Will Internet of Bodies technologies eventually lead to private companies regulating who lives and dies based on implant access?

speaker

Alina Ustinova

explanation

This explores the potential shift in power dynamics between governments, companies, and individuals in healthcare decision-making.

Do we have enough understanding of IoB technologies to create effective frameworks for harnessing benefits while protecting individuals?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This question addresses the readiness of the international community to regulate and manage IoB technologies.