Swedes see microchip implant revolution.
Monday, July 13, 2020
Sunday, March 29, 2020
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
Saturday, February 27, 2016
IMF warns the global economy is “highly vulnerable”
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has said the global economy has weakened further and warned it was “highly vulnerable to adverse shocks”.
It said the weakening had come “amid increasing financial turbulence and falling asset prices”.
The IMF’s report comes before the meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank governors in Shanghai later this week.
It said China’s slowdown was adding to global economic growth concerns.
China’s economy, the second-biggest in the world, is growing at the slowest rate in 25 years.
The IMF also noted any future prospects for global growth “could be derailed by market turbulence, the oil price crash and geopolitical conflicts”.
Comment by Dennis Edwards:
We all understand that one day or another the financial system, even with all the maneuvering of the Federal Reserve Bank and the International Monetary Fund, could come tumbling down. Many highly accredited economists have written and spoken of the imminent financial crash. James Richards, in his compelling study on the internacional financial system's health, says quantitative easing has only prolonged the day of reckoning.
In his book, The Death of Money, he proposes that it could very well be China's faulty financial practices, copying the West's bad example, that ultimately lead the world down the road to financial disaster. China's mistakes, coupled with the West's throwing money at their problems, will lead to the final collapse of the dollar as an international reserve money. As a result the SDRs of the International Monetary Fund, a basket of currency with countries having buying rights internationally depending upon their real ability to pay, will become the bases of a new international financial system.
America and other countries will not be able to send their problems abroad by printing more money. They printed money, or what they have called "quantitative easing," to save the bankers. But by doing so, they also wanted to cause inflation. By causing inflation, the national deficit, in real terms, goes down as the deficit is being paid with inflated money which has less real value. The economy, however, naturally wants to deflate. A deflation of the economy would be the true natural occurrence and would have occurred in 2008 had the government not implemented their inflationary printing of money through quantitative easing.
In Richard's opinion, all the financial maneuvering in the end won't save the sinking ship. The world is on the brink of a new international financial order and the Western nations are trying to maintain their dominance, while the BRICS and others want a more equal and fare share of the pie. Of course, to the Bible student, the financial crash could very well be the key event to further along the end-time prophecy scenario.
The Bible predicts, after a short period of international peace, a new financial system will come into affect based on computerized money. Every man and woman will need to have a bio-chip implant in order to buy or sell. Thus will commence a period in history which Jesus called the Great Tribulation, consisting of wars and persecution of those who refuse to accept the new mandatory bio-chip implant. After three and a half years, the famous battle of Armageddon will take place in the Middle East and one third of the population of the world will die. Only the return of Christ to the planet will stop man from totally destroying humanity completely.
Thursday, June 4, 2015
Implants to aid payment with a wave of the hand
The Australian, May 26, 2015
Is it retail therapy gone mad? The dawn of a new cyborg age? Or a new meaning to going down under?
Whatever the case, a fair proportion of Australians are receptive to technology mixing with their precious human organic flesh, if it means making payments at retail stores is easier. A survey, commissioned by global payments firm Visa, found 25 per cent of Australians were “slightly interested” in having a commerce-oriented chip implanted in their skin.
Research firm UMR conducted the survey for Visa, interviewing 1000 local consumers.
A subcutaneous chip would let consumers pay at a retail terminal without a wallet, credit card, smartphone or smartwatch. They would simply wave their bare hand over a terminal. The finding was revealed as Visa and University of Technology Sydney announced a partnership to explore the future of wearable technology. Visa’s research looked at the wearable technology Australian consumers were interested in using for payments.
Thirty-two per cent would be interested in paying with a smartwatch; 29 per cent with a smart ring, and 26 per cent with smart glasses. It is little wonder Visa regards Australians as adventurous with tech. “Australians are among the world’s earliest adopters of new technology,” said George Lawson, Head of Emerging Products and Innovation for Visa in ANZSP.
There’s nothing new about implanting tags under the skin. The US firm VeriChip obtained approval to do just that more than a decade ago. Their chip consisted of a tiny antenna and an identification number. It was designed to be implanted in the soft tissue between the thumb and index finger and detected by a radiofrequency identification (RFID) scanner.
Before you see the human species morphing towards a cyborg future, there is a cautious note. esearch in the past has linked subcutaneous chips to cancers in laboratory animals at the implant site.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Saturday, August 23, 2014
How your boss will run your life in a few years
By Rick Newman, Yahoo Finance, August 19, 2014
You might think the typical workplace is pretty Orwellian these days. You ain’t seen nuthin’, Winston.
Consulting firm PwC recently published its outlook for work in 2022, based on interviews with 500 human resources experts and 10,000 others in the United States and several other countries. You probably won’t be surprised to hear that big companies could end up so powerful and influential they morph into “ministates” that fill the void when government is unable to provide essential services. Companies will also use sensors and other gizmos to monitor employees around the clock. And workers will mostly acquiesce to this digital leash, in exchange for job security, decent pay and important benefits.
That’s the most dystopian of scenarios PwC outlines in its report, yet it’s not so far-fetched, given the dramatic ways globalization and digital technology are changing the way people work and live. An increasing share of income is flowing to tech barons, data wizards and the privileged holders of capital, while ordinary workers find it harder to earn a living. There are more minimum-wage jobs today but fewer good-paying ones than there were just a few years ago, a trend many forecasters only expect to intensify.
They could be wrong. Capitalism may yet have a conscience, and another PwC scenario is a “green world” in which social responsibility is a key part of the corporate agenda. But that’s barely happening at the margins now, and with leverage continuing to shift away from workers toward employers, a rougher form of capitalism seems likely. Here are six plausible predictions about how the workplace will change by 2022:
Companies will monitor employees like lab rats. The ostensible purpose for this will be to keep tabs on employees’ health, to cut down on medical costs, sick days and illnesses that undermine workplace productivity. “The monitoring may even stretch into [employees’] private lives in an extension of today’s drug tests,” PwC predicts. The potential for controversy is obvious, and the degree of worker pushback will probably help determine whether your boss keeps tabs on how many French fries you eat and whether you hang out with that heavy drinker down the street.
Performance will be computed like an SAT score. Firms increasingly use data and technology tools to quantify the performance of employees relative to each other, and reward the best (while dispatching the worst). They could go further by applying to workers the same kind of data-mining techniques now targeted at many consumers, using hundreds of disparate pieces of information to form an encompassing profile of each individual. It’s worth pointing out that some business leaders prefer not to risk the blowback that might come from prying into employees’ lives—even if technology makes it easy.
Corporate indoctrination will intensify. “Leadership teams [will] have a high focus on the evolution of the corporate culture, with rigorous recruitment processes to ensure new employees fit the corporate ideal,” PwC predicts. “New staff [will be] subject to compulsory corporate culture learning and development programs.” Sounds creepy, but there have always been companies serving up the corporate Kool-Aid—often to their detriment. Companies with a rigid internal culture are notoriously slow to change and especially vulnerable to entrepreneurial disruptors.
Contract employees will displace full-timers. Companies will rely increasingly on people who can do high-quality work on a contract or project basis. Traditionalists often fret about this move away from predicable work, but people who adjust to a “portfolio career,” as PwC calls it, can benefit from the flexibility and autonomy it offers. Plus, being a contractor with no long-term commitment to a company might be one way to evade around-the-clock surveillance. But you better be good: To get the best jobs, contractors may have to demonstrate eBay-style ratings showing they performed well for past clients.
Specialized skills will continue to bring top dollar. As long as those are the skills employers most need. Without a doubt, in the future, they’ll entail various kinds of technology, along with engineering, science, data crunching and a measure of humanities. Workers whose skills hit the sweet spot will still be able to call the shots in 2022, earning the best pay and benefits, and perhaps exempting themselves from corporate micromanagement.
Workers with commonplace skills will struggle. The PwC report doesn’t spell this out, but one consequence of an economy in which big companies hold all the cards is a losing hand for underskilled workers. That could mean an even sharper slide in living standards for some families than they’ve experienced during the past several years, as incomes have flatlined and good-paying jobs dried up. We usually hope for a future that’s better than the present. The lesson for now may be that we have to work for it.
You might think the typical workplace is pretty Orwellian these days. You ain’t seen nuthin’, Winston.
Consulting firm PwC recently published its outlook for work in 2022, based on interviews with 500 human resources experts and 10,000 others in the United States and several other countries. You probably won’t be surprised to hear that big companies could end up so powerful and influential they morph into “ministates” that fill the void when government is unable to provide essential services. Companies will also use sensors and other gizmos to monitor employees around the clock. And workers will mostly acquiesce to this digital leash, in exchange for job security, decent pay and important benefits.
That’s the most dystopian of scenarios PwC outlines in its report, yet it’s not so far-fetched, given the dramatic ways globalization and digital technology are changing the way people work and live. An increasing share of income is flowing to tech barons, data wizards and the privileged holders of capital, while ordinary workers find it harder to earn a living. There are more minimum-wage jobs today but fewer good-paying ones than there were just a few years ago, a trend many forecasters only expect to intensify.
They could be wrong. Capitalism may yet have a conscience, and another PwC scenario is a “green world” in which social responsibility is a key part of the corporate agenda. But that’s barely happening at the margins now, and with leverage continuing to shift away from workers toward employers, a rougher form of capitalism seems likely. Here are six plausible predictions about how the workplace will change by 2022:
Companies will monitor employees like lab rats. The ostensible purpose for this will be to keep tabs on employees’ health, to cut down on medical costs, sick days and illnesses that undermine workplace productivity. “The monitoring may even stretch into [employees’] private lives in an extension of today’s drug tests,” PwC predicts. The potential for controversy is obvious, and the degree of worker pushback will probably help determine whether your boss keeps tabs on how many French fries you eat and whether you hang out with that heavy drinker down the street.
Performance will be computed like an SAT score. Firms increasingly use data and technology tools to quantify the performance of employees relative to each other, and reward the best (while dispatching the worst). They could go further by applying to workers the same kind of data-mining techniques now targeted at many consumers, using hundreds of disparate pieces of information to form an encompassing profile of each individual. It’s worth pointing out that some business leaders prefer not to risk the blowback that might come from prying into employees’ lives—even if technology makes it easy.
Corporate indoctrination will intensify. “Leadership teams [will] have a high focus on the evolution of the corporate culture, with rigorous recruitment processes to ensure new employees fit the corporate ideal,” PwC predicts. “New staff [will be] subject to compulsory corporate culture learning and development programs.” Sounds creepy, but there have always been companies serving up the corporate Kool-Aid—often to their detriment. Companies with a rigid internal culture are notoriously slow to change and especially vulnerable to entrepreneurial disruptors.
Contract employees will displace full-timers. Companies will rely increasingly on people who can do high-quality work on a contract or project basis. Traditionalists often fret about this move away from predicable work, but people who adjust to a “portfolio career,” as PwC calls it, can benefit from the flexibility and autonomy it offers. Plus, being a contractor with no long-term commitment to a company might be one way to evade around-the-clock surveillance. But you better be good: To get the best jobs, contractors may have to demonstrate eBay-style ratings showing they performed well for past clients.
Specialized skills will continue to bring top dollar. As long as those are the skills employers most need. Without a doubt, in the future, they’ll entail various kinds of technology, along with engineering, science, data crunching and a measure of humanities. Workers whose skills hit the sweet spot will still be able to call the shots in 2022, earning the best pay and benefits, and perhaps exempting themselves from corporate micromanagement.
Workers with commonplace skills will struggle. The PwC report doesn’t spell this out, but one consequence of an economy in which big companies hold all the cards is a losing hand for underskilled workers. That could mean an even sharper slide in living standards for some families than they’ve experienced during the past several years, as incomes have flatlined and good-paying jobs dried up. We usually hope for a future that’s better than the present. The lesson for now may be that we have to work for it.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Monday, August 11, 2014
Microchips Will Be Implanted Into Healthy People Sooner Than You Think
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/microchips-implanted-healthy-people-sooner-152916800.html
By Dina SpectorAugust 8, 2014 11:29 AM
View gallery.
Mark Gasson
In March 2009, British researcher Mark Gasson had a chip injected under the skin of his hand. The chip, a slightly more advanced version of the tags used to track pets, turned Gasson into a walking swipe-card. With a wave of his wrist, he could open security doors at the University of Reading laboratory, where his experiment was being conducted, and he could unlock his cell phone just by cradling it.
A year later, Gasson infected his own implant with a computer virus, one that he could pass on to other computer systems if the building's networks were programmed to read his chip. As Gasson breezed around the the workplace, spreading the virus and corrupting computer systems, certain areas of the building became inaccessible to his colleagues.
At the time of the experiment, theoretical physicist and author of "The Future of the Mind" Michio Kaku told FOX News that demonstrating the ability to spread infection was an "important point" because "we're going to have more chips in our body and clothing."
Thousands of Americans already have implanted medical devices, including pacemakers, which are inserted into the chest to treat abnormal heart rhythms, and cochlear implants, which help deaf people to hear.
But the future, Gasson says, is going to focus on implantable technology for healthy people. Part of the reason is that we continually look for ways to make our lives easier. The question is whether we're willing accept both the unintended and unknown consequences that come with giving up partial control of our bodies to technology.Human vs. Machine
Implantable microchips provide a more intimate connection with technology than that of any other portable electronic device, like a cell phone or iPod, because the tag becomes a direct part of us when it's inserted into our body. Implants "have the potential to change the very essence of what it is to be human," Gasson said at a 2012 TEDX Talk.
The susceptibility of human microchips to cyber attacks is one worry, but Gasson wanted to explore issues beyond common concerns related to privacy and security.
That's why he conducted the experiment in two stages: A surgeon initially inserted a clean computer chip into his hand, and the computer virus was unleashed a little over a year later. During that time, Gasson and his team were particularly interested in studying the psychological implications of implanted devices.
"There's an underlying feeling that [having an implantable device] is an alien phenomenon," said Gasson, a cybernetics expert. The only way to properly explore the psychological aspect was to have the device himself, he said.What is an RFID implant?
View gallery.
Mark Gasson
A close-up of the implant device next to a match stick. The microchip, encased in glass, is about the size of a grain of rice.
RFID stands for radio frequency identification. The chip doesn't have its own battery, powered instead by a reader that pulls information out of the chip. The reader gets the chip's unique ID number and then cross references it to a database. RFID chips are found in lots of things we use every day, including credit cards.
Similar, if not creepier, technology is currently at work in things like Disney World's MagicBand, which tracks a wearer's location within the park and connects to that person's accounts, according to a recent Medium post. These technologies have been useful not just for the company but for park guests — it makes their experience seamless.
These technologies are also being used for payment services: Some people use Google Wallet and Tap-To-Pay services to pay using their phones at stores and in cabs, instead of whipping out their wallet or carrying all their cards with them. The Hilton just recently announced a feature to replace keycards at its hotels. Guests will use an app to access their room.
As these technologies get more advanced and their uses get more varied, why would we be carrying a phone around when we could do all these things with a swipe of the hand?Why an implant?
View gallery.
Vimeo/DangerousThings
The chip implanted in Gasson's thumb, which is roughly the shape and size of a grain of rice, functions "like a tiny computer." It can store information like a small USB memory stick.
The chip appears as an extremely small, though visible, bump on the side of his finger. "It does freak people out quite a bit," Gasson said. "But it doesn't look grotesque."
Unsurprisingly, Gasson says the chip did not immediately feel like part of his body. But the distinction faded over time as he used the chip more and more. "Unlike keys or a phone, you don't have to think about carrying this type of device, and then you seamlessly use it and forget about it."
Gasson has no plans to remove the chip.
View gallery.
Mark Gasson
Mark Gasson from the University of Reading holding the computer chip that was injected into his hand.
Gasson's research in human microchips parallels the work of a growing community of people, so-called biohackers, who view microchipping as the next form of human evolution. Hacking tends to have a negative connotation, but this new group of technology enthusiasts offers a different meaning. In their world, the goal of hacking is not to inflict harm, but to transform something from its original purpose into something more useful.
The human body has limitations, but biohackers are constantly thinking of how those limitations can be overcome — how life can be made better or more convenient (like removing the need to carry around keys all the time) through the use of technology.
And the desire for these technologies is there. The company Dangerous Things has developed the first DIY kit for implantable devices, which back in December raised more than $30,000 from it's $8,000 Indiegogo goal. The package comes with everything you need to insert the chip yourself. The chip allows you to interact with other devices by waving your hand or entering a room. You can buy one now for $99.
View gallery.
Vimeo/Dangerous Things
Dangerous Things founder Amal Graafstra.
In the accompanying video, Dangerous Things founder Amal Graafstra describes how he uses his implant:
The primary use is to be able to program a tag with a url or information you want to share. I use my implants to get into my house, I use it for access control solutions, to get into my back door every day after I get home. I use it get access to my car; I can unlock my car and get in. I use it to log into my computer. I also use it to share contact details with people.Challenges Ahead
The Dangerous Things kit isn't the first commercially available RFID microchip — a company called VeriChip actually got FDA approval to market an implant back in 2004. The implant was designed to carry a unique ID number that hospitals could use to pull up a patient's medical records if he or she were unconscious. But the chip was discontinued in 2010 over privacy concerns.
The failure of VeriChip, later rebranded as PositiveID, highlights the legal issues of microchipping people. Since 2009, at least nine states have either passed laws or proposed bills to prohibit the enforced implantation of chips.
Some states, including California, have enacted an "age of consent" clause, which allows parents to override the right of children under a certain age to decide if they want to be implanted. This inevitably kicks off the discussion of whether it's ethically sound to microchip one's child at birth. Supporters love the idea because they say it would prevent kidnappings. Critics worry that if a chip gave parents the ability to track their kids, then predators could, too.
But these ethical questions are not yet urgent. The technology is not yet useful or developed enough for everyone to have it, or even want it.
To start, there are several user-related misconceptions about RFID implants, namely the idea that these chips can be used to track one's location every second of the day. This is not yet possible, because today's RFID chips do not contain GPS trackers. Someone could track the computer systems that were accessed throughout the day (in the same way a credit card company can track purchases and where they were made), but the technology doesn't provide real-time location data.
Other people worry about chips being used to covertly access unauthorized systems. As with other smart cards, which are programmed to be read by specific systems, someone with an RFID implant can't just go about gaining entry to any old computer system. It takes a specialist reader to access a certain device.
"Anything that's useful is going to happen in the next 10 to 20 years," Gasson said, referring to a time in which we may start merging devices created by tech enthusiasts and medical-type technology to do things like store or download memories from the brain.
By Dina SpectorAugust 8, 2014 11:29 AM
View gallery.
Mark Gasson
In March 2009, British researcher Mark Gasson had a chip injected under the skin of his hand. The chip, a slightly more advanced version of the tags used to track pets, turned Gasson into a walking swipe-card. With a wave of his wrist, he could open security doors at the University of Reading laboratory, where his experiment was being conducted, and he could unlock his cell phone just by cradling it.
A year later, Gasson infected his own implant with a computer virus, one that he could pass on to other computer systems if the building's networks were programmed to read his chip. As Gasson breezed around the the workplace, spreading the virus and corrupting computer systems, certain areas of the building became inaccessible to his colleagues.
At the time of the experiment, theoretical physicist and author of "The Future of the Mind" Michio Kaku told FOX News that demonstrating the ability to spread infection was an "important point" because "we're going to have more chips in our body and clothing."
Thousands of Americans already have implanted medical devices, including pacemakers, which are inserted into the chest to treat abnormal heart rhythms, and cochlear implants, which help deaf people to hear.
But the future, Gasson says, is going to focus on implantable technology for healthy people. Part of the reason is that we continually look for ways to make our lives easier. The question is whether we're willing accept both the unintended and unknown consequences that come with giving up partial control of our bodies to technology.Human vs. Machine
Implantable microchips provide a more intimate connection with technology than that of any other portable electronic device, like a cell phone or iPod, because the tag becomes a direct part of us when it's inserted into our body. Implants "have the potential to change the very essence of what it is to be human," Gasson said at a 2012 TEDX Talk.
The susceptibility of human microchips to cyber attacks is one worry, but Gasson wanted to explore issues beyond common concerns related to privacy and security.
That's why he conducted the experiment in two stages: A surgeon initially inserted a clean computer chip into his hand, and the computer virus was unleashed a little over a year later. During that time, Gasson and his team were particularly interested in studying the psychological implications of implanted devices.
"There's an underlying feeling that [having an implantable device] is an alien phenomenon," said Gasson, a cybernetics expert. The only way to properly explore the psychological aspect was to have the device himself, he said.What is an RFID implant?
View gallery.
Mark Gasson
A close-up of the implant device next to a match stick. The microchip, encased in glass, is about the size of a grain of rice.
RFID stands for radio frequency identification. The chip doesn't have its own battery, powered instead by a reader that pulls information out of the chip. The reader gets the chip's unique ID number and then cross references it to a database. RFID chips are found in lots of things we use every day, including credit cards.
Similar, if not creepier, technology is currently at work in things like Disney World's MagicBand, which tracks a wearer's location within the park and connects to that person's accounts, according to a recent Medium post. These technologies have been useful not just for the company but for park guests — it makes their experience seamless.
These technologies are also being used for payment services: Some people use Google Wallet and Tap-To-Pay services to pay using their phones at stores and in cabs, instead of whipping out their wallet or carrying all their cards with them. The Hilton just recently announced a feature to replace keycards at its hotels. Guests will use an app to access their room.
As these technologies get more advanced and their uses get more varied, why would we be carrying a phone around when we could do all these things with a swipe of the hand?Why an implant?
View gallery.
Vimeo/DangerousThings
The chip implanted in Gasson's thumb, which is roughly the shape and size of a grain of rice, functions "like a tiny computer." It can store information like a small USB memory stick.
The chip appears as an extremely small, though visible, bump on the side of his finger. "It does freak people out quite a bit," Gasson said. "But it doesn't look grotesque."
Unsurprisingly, Gasson says the chip did not immediately feel like part of his body. But the distinction faded over time as he used the chip more and more. "Unlike keys or a phone, you don't have to think about carrying this type of device, and then you seamlessly use it and forget about it."
Gasson has no plans to remove the chip.
View gallery.
Mark Gasson
Mark Gasson from the University of Reading holding the computer chip that was injected into his hand.
Gasson's research in human microchips parallels the work of a growing community of people, so-called biohackers, who view microchipping as the next form of human evolution. Hacking tends to have a negative connotation, but this new group of technology enthusiasts offers a different meaning. In their world, the goal of hacking is not to inflict harm, but to transform something from its original purpose into something more useful.
The human body has limitations, but biohackers are constantly thinking of how those limitations can be overcome — how life can be made better or more convenient (like removing the need to carry around keys all the time) through the use of technology.
And the desire for these technologies is there. The company Dangerous Things has developed the first DIY kit for implantable devices, which back in December raised more than $30,000 from it's $8,000 Indiegogo goal. The package comes with everything you need to insert the chip yourself. The chip allows you to interact with other devices by waving your hand or entering a room. You can buy one now for $99.
View gallery.
Vimeo/Dangerous Things
Dangerous Things founder Amal Graafstra.
In the accompanying video, Dangerous Things founder Amal Graafstra describes how he uses his implant:
The primary use is to be able to program a tag with a url or information you want to share. I use my implants to get into my house, I use it for access control solutions, to get into my back door every day after I get home. I use it get access to my car; I can unlock my car and get in. I use it to log into my computer. I also use it to share contact details with people.Challenges Ahead
The Dangerous Things kit isn't the first commercially available RFID microchip — a company called VeriChip actually got FDA approval to market an implant back in 2004. The implant was designed to carry a unique ID number that hospitals could use to pull up a patient's medical records if he or she were unconscious. But the chip was discontinued in 2010 over privacy concerns.
The failure of VeriChip, later rebranded as PositiveID, highlights the legal issues of microchipping people. Since 2009, at least nine states have either passed laws or proposed bills to prohibit the enforced implantation of chips.
Some states, including California, have enacted an "age of consent" clause, which allows parents to override the right of children under a certain age to decide if they want to be implanted. This inevitably kicks off the discussion of whether it's ethically sound to microchip one's child at birth. Supporters love the idea because they say it would prevent kidnappings. Critics worry that if a chip gave parents the ability to track their kids, then predators could, too.
But these ethical questions are not yet urgent. The technology is not yet useful or developed enough for everyone to have it, or even want it.
To start, there are several user-related misconceptions about RFID implants, namely the idea that these chips can be used to track one's location every second of the day. This is not yet possible, because today's RFID chips do not contain GPS trackers. Someone could track the computer systems that were accessed throughout the day (in the same way a credit card company can track purchases and where they were made), but the technology doesn't provide real-time location data.
Other people worry about chips being used to covertly access unauthorized systems. As with other smart cards, which are programmed to be read by specific systems, someone with an RFID implant can't just go about gaining entry to any old computer system. It takes a specialist reader to access a certain device.
"Anything that's useful is going to happen in the next 10 to 20 years," Gasson said, referring to a time in which we may start merging devices created by tech enthusiasts and medical-type technology to do things like store or download memories from the brain.
