[Justsignedup]

Heh. Remember back in the day when pacemakers were being hacked remotely because admin passwords weren't even changed from the default, on top of outdated wireless protocols? Oh right that's today!

Hardware makers often aren't good at software, not to mention software updates. And even that gets wonky, like when Microsoft update got hijacked.

Point is, if we can't get IoT 100% right, or even 90% right, how can we trust IoT with physical interfaces into our bodies? That's the problem. And then what happens if the company who made your implant goes out of business? What do you do when those updates stop? Look at cellphones, supporting a cellphone for 2 years is too much for most hardware makers, they rather never update it.

Point is, even if the tech is 100% possible, we're way too far from business setups that allow for this to happen.

[a_wild_dandan]

These are all valid worries, but they all have the same fundamental solutions as current products.

> if we can't get IoT 100% right, or even 90% right, how can we trust IoT with physical interfaces into our bodies?

Trust is a risk-reward calculus for any product, whether it's BCI, the microcontrollers in your car, or the (hopefully uninfected) produce in your supermarket. Many folks will find the BCI value outweighs the risks for some feature set that matters to them.

> And then what happens if the company who made your implant goes out of business? What do you do when those updates stop?

Certain applications will have to be designed and evaluated with longevity or long-term support in mind. You don't need that when talking about cellphones. You do for today's pacemakers.

[psyc]

Like everything else, it will be imperfect, there will be scandals, the occasional lawsuit, and we'll muddle through.

[Ygg2]

Software scandals don't end up with people dead or extorted at gun point. Yet.

[headcanon]

Technically that has happened: https://www.bugsnag.com/blog/bug-day-race-condition-therac-2...

But you're right, software bugs don't generally result in lives lost, at least directly.

[corysama]

So, everyone needs to go back and watch the Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex series. In that world, pretty much everyone has a few enhancements, visual and audio overlay options are pretty much universal. Having your equipment hacked is a super rare, state-actor-level event. But, the story is focused on people who deal with events of that magnitude, so it happens all the time in the plotline.

[Balgair]

> not to mention software updates.

Updates of any sort to the SW are generally very difficult to do. The certification process for any medical device is hard enough, let alone for implants, let alone for life-critical implants, let alone the recertification process for an already implanted life-critical device. This is why you'll see sonogram machines running XP still, completely disconnected from the larger internet [0].

The questions listed are mostly already considered and have many mitigation strategies per the regulatory agency in charge. There are many other questions that people like the FDA demand answers to.

One thing about the business side is that risk/reward ratio. In medical development, FDA authorization typically occurs at the 10-12 year mark for a product (though it varies widely). Meaning that your start-up only gets the go-ahead to make money after about a decade of investment. That said, once you get to sell, you have an effective monopoly on the market. Hence the costs of new drugs and devices being so insanely high; it's that risk/reward imbalance on the business side.

[0] Another reason why IoT medicine is very difficult, among many.

[matz1]

The trick is I never expect anything to be 100% right, or even 90% right. Even if they promise to be 100% right.

Either accept that it can broke or always have a backup plan.

>then what happens if the company who made your implant goes out of business?

The company goes out of business doesn't always mean the product stop working anymore.

If the product stop working then I'll look for removal/replacement.

[brundolf]

And that's not even getting into the privacy aspect. I, for one, reserve no excitement whatsoever for a world where we can interface directly with computers. I'm just hoping that unlike smartphones, it remains viably optional.

[silicon2401]

Even worse, what if you have artificial eyes and one day the manufacturer blocks your vision functionality because you did something they disagree with politically? It used to be your account would get banned, now with cancel culture you can be banned from participating in media and society altogether, tomorrow maybe your ability to participate in your own body's functionality may be subject to the whims of the censors and the morality police

[kbenson]

That seems stretch. People are getting accounts cancelled on online services they use, where the companies feel they may be morally or legally complicit in the message, or their employees, who decide they don't want to employ that person. I don't think most "cancelled" people are worried about their grocery stores not accepting them, or any number of other services where they aren't a platform used to further the behavior people are upset about.

If you got eyes that required the internet to function you made a poor and dangerous choice regardless of whether the public or some company wants to punish you for some perceived public behavior. If you got eyes that required some company on the internet's continued acceptance of you as a client, you made an even worse choice.

[markdown]

Anyone who signs away to a corporation their right to see deserves whatever results from such an arrangement.

[criddell]

I don't recall where I first heard this, but I think it's true:

The theme of CES for the past decade has been making products worse through software.