Nanoradio: A single carbon nanotube that can serve all the functions of a radio; antenna, transmitter, demodulator, all in one. It has been developed by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and is so sensitive and small that the "static" in the background is actually the bouncing of atoms off the nanotube.
Synthesis:
In October 2007, a University of California research team led by Peter Burke succeeded in creating a nano-scale demodulator that could interact with a regular radio to send music from an iPod to speakers across the room. While impressive, it may not exactly be earth-shattering stuff. But, a mere two weeks later, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory one-upped the team by creating an entire radio only 10 nanometers across (one ten thousandth the width of a human hair). The implications of that one are astounding.
It works on a vacuum-tube principle. Vacuum tubes, for those not aware, were a technology popular in the 1950s where electrons are projected short distances between electrodes with a jump, something dependent on a vacuum environment. Once transistors, a superior method for the technology of the time appeared, they fell into disuse. However, vacuum tube-type devices become rapidly more efficient as you delve deeper into the nano scale, enabling electric transmissions in the nanometer range.
Since these devices are so small, they can transmit information picked up at the molecular level, and this is where their best use will likely be found. They can be put in the body and transmit information from individual cells, while they are functioning. There is no current method for doing so that does not destroy the cell, as no transmitters can work on a small enough scale. This will have a large impact on Health and Medicine. Putting the devices in brain cells could allow you to see the transmissions between the cells, helping to diagnose problems, study effects of treatments, and possibly discover ways to enhance the brain itself. Similar to the RFIDs that can find use even scattered in the wind, these radios can lead to even smaller RFID tagging, with smaller radio technology. Data could be transmitted from anywhere, on any level, as long as they continue to function.
A third study shows the capability of nanodevices to power themselves with energy taken from biological phenomena like muscle pulses. When this technology is improved enough, the nanoradios could not only observe cells, but run forever off the energy of the cells themselves, making conventional power supplies unnecessary.
Analysis
Privacy and Anonymity: O'Brian and Big Brother would have drooled over having this kind of technology at their disposal. How private can you be, when it is possible to peer into and send transmissions from your very cells? The technology is not quite here yet, but it is certainly possible that such a nanoradio could be combined with a nanobot that could automatically insert the nanoradios into humans and their cells, allowing total monitoring of every aspect at all times.
It is not certain who exactly will have control of the technology at this phase, as it has only been seen in university studies, and no corporation has yet taken up the task of trying to create and cell products based on this technology. However, it is entirely possible upstart companies such as Nanomix may have a role in marketing uses of this product, and possibly abusing it to expand their power into a Corporatocracy. I would be very skeptical of any corporation having control of such a spying device. Hopefully policies and standards will be enacted immediately to regulate such a device.
Obviously, they should need consent in order to implant a nanoradio into someone's cells, but it may be possible to covertly do it. On the other hand, if implanted only in the willing, it seems the only way to preserve privacy may be to not use it in the first place; negating the possible benefits as well. It will be every person's choice about if the benefits outweigh the costs when finally this becomes popularly available.
Control: Even such an instrument as a security camera could be an instrument of control, discouraging theft and identifying it when it does happen. How much more could a sensitive, undetectable instrument like a nanoradio accomplish the same? If someone has access to the transmissions from your nanoradio, they will know practically everything about you, and this is a means of having great overpowering control.
Going back to the issue of who has control, the control this offers also has great positive benefits. Controlled by doctors, they could be used to swiftly analyze the chemicals in a cell and transmit it, possibly finding viruses and other malicious infecting agents, who if chemically analyzed could lead to near instantaneous diagnosis and more effective treatment. This will rapidly increase the efficiency of our medical system, assuming a cheap and efficient way of creating and distributing nanoradios is found.
Since the nanoradios would draw on the energy of the people they are inside of, you would essentially be powering the very thing that helps control you with no other option, which is quite a scary thought. But to be honest, I somewhat doubt this. People don't tend to react well to being under 24/7 control, especially in a democracy. In the future though, anything is possible.
Reliability: This technology is still in it's infancy. Currently, transmissions are full of static due to quantum interference, but the Berkeley team assures us that this could be solved with better vacuums, capable of cutting down the interference. Even then, the chemical sensors and distribution system could easily go wrong in many ways.
If radio does not decode and transmit effectively, bad signals could be sent that could lead to misdiagnosis. If the chemical sensors miss information, or get incorrect information from bad analysis, then it could cause poor or wrong information, again possibly leading to bad information and bad treatments. And if the nanoradios arrive in the wrong place, especially if this is not realized, the faults that could be caused are beyond reckoning. They could leave nano "corpses" behind once deactivated that could cause problems.
Personally, I don't think this will be on that level of danger, the worst case scenario of course. Testing would be done on a variety of animals before considered for use in humans, and the static problems already have a foreseeable solution. I would never underestimate the ability to work out problems in technology eventually.
-Zev Feinstein
Rowe, Aaron. "Hamsters Get Nanotechnology Now But We Could Be Waiting for Ten Years." Wired. Wired.com, 26 Mar. 2009. Web. 5 Feb. 2010.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/nanogenerator/#ixzz0eeBQB6Rz
This technology is actually quite scary, specifically with the mention of cellular transmition. The idea that there could be a radio monitoring my cellular transmitions, have limitless possibilities. I believe that there is research, specifically in the brain, that states that our emotions, our memories, and our thoughts are merely the result of firing from the neural level. If there was some sort of radio that could monitor this, then the ability for Big Brother to watch us are infinite. This surveillance device transcends the idea of thought crime. You can hide thought crime, because that depends on you actually acting on your thoughts. But you can't hide your individual thoughts themselves. Now, of course I don't completely know that that would be the natural progression, but from the little information I have about these, I'm already scared.
ReplyDeleteOh Payne! You beat me to the 1984 scenario. Good job! You make my comment a bit tougher to write.
ReplyDeleteYes there are very scary implications for this technology but with certain limits/policies/standards in place it could be incredibly useful. First off, I sure sensors needed to monitor certain heal effects would be different from sensors monitoring neuron firing. Also, limit the max range the sensor can transmit the data, encrypt the data, destroy the data after it has been used.
Also, enforcing a Corporatocracy would be incredibly difficult, the amount of data would be massive and the algorithms would be enormously complex. I don't know if EMPs apply but if so then 1984 goes bye-bye.
The other problem with the 1984 argument is it relies on a perfect “Party.” The Party in 1984 has no official hierarchy that explicitly spells out how to ascend or descend in Party ranking. This would lead to a power grab at the top with everyone trying to leapfrog everyone else. There would essentially be a power vacuum because there is no structure in place to hold and change power positions. The Party would implode on itself. Yet if there were a structure it would allow for human error, Big Brother would not be infallible and could make mistakes and 1984 wouldn’t exist.
You mentioned this point but I think you should have made it much much bigger is the ability for these devices to get power for biological organisms. This is a People and Machines SEI and could easily lead to cyborgs or at worst a machine takeover of earth. I think a carbon-nano tube run 1984 would be more likely. :-)
Lastly, Zev, get Spencer to read your article, if he hasn't already. His is a broad overview of sensors and yours is a great in-depth analysis of a specific one. They compliment each other.
Great article though!
~ Tobiah M.