Nanorobots risks
NANOBOTS ARE HERE:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbtucker/2024/08/22/the-singularity-is-coming-soon-heres-what-it-may-mean/ The Singularity Is Coming Soon. Here’s What It May Mean.
Now comes The Singularity is Nearer: When We Merge with A.I. where Kurzweil steps up the Singularity’s arrival timeline to 2029. “Algorithmic innovations and the emergence of big data have allowed AI to achieve startling breakthroughs sooner than expected,” reports Kurzweil.
Look for medical cures that will “add decades to human life spans” just ahead.
I wonder how this new asbestos (toxic nanotechnology/nanobots) is supposed to “cure” you?
2003:
Technology Innovations, LLC and Innovation On Demand, Inc. July 17, 2003 "Wireless technique for microactivation" patent: Technical Backgrounder For "Breakthrough enables world’s smallest robots; nanobots capable of manipulating large molecules and cells" press release (innovation-on-demand.com/microactuators.pdf)
The breakthrough:
Wireless shape-memory microactuators Inventor Ken Clements, working with Technology Innovations, developed a breakthrough solution to this impasse: using an electron beam (a photon beam such as a laser or a phonon or sound beam can also be used) instead of wires to deliver the precise heat energy needed to trigger a heat-based SMA microactuator10, as confirmed by research at TiNi Alloy 11.
An electron beam can be precisely focused down to tenths of a nanometer and the beam can be rapidly moved to an exact location to activate the desired SMA device. This landmark invention is described in United States Patent #6,588,208, "Wireless technique for microactivation12," issued July 8, 2003. Using an electron beam (e-beam) from a scanning electron microscope (SEM), a micro-robot created from an SMA thin film can now be sized as small as 2 microns wide by 10 microns long. That's 50 times smaller than what's feasible with current microactuator technology.
Artist concept of wireless heat-based SMA micro-robot with gripper for 100 nm objects and "legs" for mobility. Purple dots are targets heated by the e-beam; they then conduct the heat to the SMA "muscles" in the legs and gripper to generate the programmed movement. Such a micro-robot, positioned on an electron microscope stage, can have grippers capable of grasping and moving objects as small as 100 nm, such as a DNA molecule or a crystalized building-block molecule.
Here's how: The grippers grip the object when cool. If you heat the microtweezer arms with a precisely timed series of e-beam pulses, it bends outward and releases the object. You can also move the microbot in any direction. If you heat one of the two SMA "muscles" on the micro-robot's "legs" while simultaneously letting the other muscle cool, and do the same on the other side of the micro-robot, you can make the micro-robot "walk" in a chosen direction – similar to how a rowing team moves a boat13.
The action and movement of the micro-robot can be precisely controlled by CAD (computer aided design) software in a PC that is connected to the e-beam device.
The software will direct the e-beam to send a series of pulses. The same e-beam microscope will also be used to image the micro-robot, so the experimenter can have continuous feedback on a CRT of the microbot's position and actions.
Uses of micro-robots There are many important applications for micro-robots. Here are a few:
• Building medical devices such as valves and stents that are 100 times smaller than current technology
• Building tinier remotely controlled microsurgical instruments that can progress through the bloodstream and do noninvasive surgery such as in vivo catheterization for endovascular deposition of thrombogenic materials or microbiopsy of vessel walls (brings the "Incredible Voyage" scenario one step closer)
• Fabricating biochips for security uses
• Fabricating miniaturized molds that can turn out parts in a microfactory
• Manipulating proteins and genetic components
2019:
https://www.itm.uni-luebeck.de/fileadmin/files/publications/a11-Arrabal.pdf Congestion Control by Deviation Routing in Electromagnetic Nanonetworks
ABSTRACT
Pulse-based wireless nanonetworks differ in many ways from traditional wireless networks. This paper investigates congestion in multi hop nanonetworks, which do not behave as usual due to the specifics of the channel and the physical layer. Most protocols and network models assume that each node can listen to all of the traffic sent on their channel. In wireless nanonetworks, the capacity (in the order of Tb/s) of the shared channel is well beyond the processing capability of an individual node. Consequently, congestion arises from the limited buffers of individual nodes on the path instead of limited channel bandwidth. After defining congestion in this context, we propose a solution suitable to large, wireless nanonetworks. Instead of decreasing the sending rate to reduce overall traffic and congestion, we use the SLR routing protocol to find less saturated routes. Our evaluation demonstrates the effectiveness of this solution and shows that the throughput can be preserved with moderate activity overhead and latency cost.
1 INTRODUCTION
Nanonetworks are made up of tiny, autonomous robots with a size measured in nanometres.
These nanoscale robots, or nanobots, usually possess sensors and actuators, a processor and memory. They can move and communicate with each other [8]. A single robot is minuscule, no larger than a few micrometres. It will thus be limited in its computing capabilities, and needs to collaborate with other nanobots to fulfil its tasks [1]. This gives rise to nanonetworks.
Physical communication in nanonetworks employs electromagnetic waves in the terahertz band [13]. Nodes use Time Spread On-Off Keying (TS-OOK) [11] for medium access. Messages comprise a series of one pulse per bit spread out over time. TS-OOK can interleave messages: As pulses spread out, the channel is available to other messages in between bits. Still, nanobots possess limited energy supplies, and thus can only communicate over short distances. Nanonetworks thus need to organise into multi hop networks, especially if they need to cover large areas: For example, a medical nanonetwork might need to cover a whole human body [18]. An environmental monitoring network to detect airborne contaminants might need to observe an even larger volume. Smart materials, which to a large degree are made up of nanobots [6], additionally exhibit a high network density. With possibly thousands of neighbours, a nanobot cannot easily maintain an up-to-date list of its neighbourhood, and even less maintain IP-like routes to distant nodes. Alternative addressing schemes must use other approaches, for example a form of geocasting or spatial address [17]. A routing algorithm with spatial addressing can forward messages “in the direction” of a destination. It can thereby avoid the broadcast storm [19] that may easily arise with an electromagnetic channel. At the same time, spatial addresses allow simple forwarding schemes suitable for resource constrained nanobots. Stateless Linear Routing (SLR) [20] uses the hop count as a measure of spatial distance. Several anchor nodes span a relative coordinate system, where each node stores the number of hops to all anchor nodes as its address. To forward a message, SLR computes if a node’s address is on a line from source to destination coordinate. Nodes thus do not explicitly construct an end-to-end route, but compute just a local forwarding decision.
While the literature has previously addressed MAC and routing layers in nanonetworks, this paper is, to the best of our knowledge, the first to address congestion control and transport layer features in these networks.
Recently, the growing interest in different types of networks, such as mobile ad hoc networks (MANET) and wireless sensor networks (WSN), lead to proposal of new techniques of congestion control…
REFERENCES
[1] Ian F Akyildiz and Josep Miquel Jornet. 2010. The internet of nano-things. IEEE Wireless Communications 17, 6 (2010), 1–6.
[2] M. Ali, B. G. Stewart, A. Shahrabi, and A. Vallavaraj. 2012. Congestion adaptive multipath routing for load balancing in mobile ad hoc networks. In 8th International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology (IIT). IEEE, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 305–309.
[3] Aboli Arun Anasane and Rachana Anil Satao. 2016. A Survey on various Multipath Routing protocols in Wireless Sensor Networks. In International Conference on Communication, Computing and Virtualization (ICCCV). Elsevier, Mumbai, India, 610–615.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_city#Technologies
Smart city initiatives have been criticized as driven by corporations,[17][18] poorly adapted to residents' needs,[19][20] as largely unsuccessful,[citation needed] and as a move toward totalitarian surveillance.[21]
[4] Thierry Arrabal, Dominique Dhoutaut, and Eugen Dedu. 2018. Efficient Density Estimation Algorithm for Ultra Dense Wireless Networks. In 27th International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN). IEEE, Hangzhou, China, 1–9.
[5] Thierry Arrabal, Dominique Dhoutaut, and Eugen Dedu. 2018. Efficient multihop broadcasting in dense nanonetworks. In 17th IEEE International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications (NCA). IEEE, Cambridge, MA, USA, 385–393.
[6] Julien Bourgeois, Benoit Piranda, Andre Naz, Nicolas Boillot, Hakim Mabed, Dominique Dhoutaut, Thadeu Tucci, and Hicham Lakhlef. 2016. Programmable matter as a cyber-physical conjugation. In Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2016 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, Budapest, Hungary, 002942–002947.
[7] Bob Braden, David Clark, Jon Crowcroft, et al. 1998. Recommandations on Queue Management and Congestion Avoidance in the Internet. IETF standard. RFC 2309.
[8] Florian Büther, Florian-Lennert Lau, Marc Stelzner, and Sebastian Ebers. 2017. A Formal Definition for Nanorobots and Nanonetworks. In Internet of Things, Smart Spaces, and Next Generation Networks and Systems: 17th International Conference, NEW2AN 2017, 10th Conference, ruSMART 2017, Third Workshop NsCC 2017, St. Petersburg, Russia, August 28–30, 2017, Proceedings, Olga Galinina, Sergey Andreev, Sergey Balandin, and Yevgeni Koucheryavy (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67380-6_20
[9] Dominique Dhoutaut, Thierry Arrabal, and Eugen Dedu. 2018. BitSimulator, an electromagnetic nanonetworks simulator. In 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Communication (NanoCom). ACM/IEEE, Reykjavik, Iceland, 1–6.
[10] Zahed Hossain, Qing Xia, and Josep Miquel Jornet. 2018. TeraSim: An ns-3 extension to simulate Terahertz-band communication networks. Nano Communication Networks 17 (Sept. 2018), 36–44.
[11] Josep Miquel Jornet and Ian F Akyildiz. 2011. Information capacity of pulse based wireless nanosensor networks. In 8th Annual IEEE Communications Society Conference on Sensor, Mesh and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks (SECON). IEEE, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 80–88.
[12] James F. Kurose and Keith W. Ross. 2003. Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach Featuring the Internet. Pearson Education, Inc.
[13] Josep Miquel Jornet Montana. 2013. Fundamentals of Electromagnetic Nanonetworks in the Terahertz Band. Ph.D. Dissertation. Georgia Institute of Technology.
[14] Giuseppe Piro, Luigi Alfredo Grieco, Gennaro Boggia, and Pietro Camarda. 2013. Nano-Sim: simulating electromagnetic-based nanonetworks in the network simulator 3. In 6th International ICST Conference on Simulation Tools and Techniques (SimuTools). ACM, Cannes, France, 203–210.
[15] K. Ramakrishnan, Sally Floyd, and David Black. 2001. The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP. RFC 3168.
[16] Vikrant Saigal, Ajit K. Nayak, Sateesh K. Pradhan, and R. Mall. 2004. Load balanced routing in mobile ad hoc networks. Computer Communications 27, 3 (Feb. 2004), 295–305.
[17] Marc Stelzner, Falko Dressler, and Stefan Fischer. 2017. Function Centric Nano Networking: Addressing nano machines in a medical application scenario. Nano Communication Networks 14 (12 2017), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nancom. 2017.09.001
[18] Marc Stelzner, Florian-Lennert Lau, Katja Freundt, Florian Büther, Mai Linh Nguyen, Cordula Stamme, and Sebastian Ebers. 2016. Precise Detection and Treatment of Human Diseases Based on Nano Networking. In Proceedings of the 11th EAI International Conference on Body Area Networks (BodyNets ’16). ICST, Brussels, Belgium, Belgium, 58–64.
[19] Yu-Chee Tseng, Sze-Yao Ni, Yuh-Shyan Chen, and Jang-Ping Sheu. 2002. The Broadcast Storm Problem in a Mobile Ad Hoc Network. Wirel. Netw. 8, 2/3 (March 2002), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013763825347
[20] Ageliki Tsioliaridou, Christos Liaskos, Eugen Dedu, and Sotiris Ioannidis. 2017. Packet routing in 3D nanonetworks: A lightweight, linear-path scheme. Nano Communication Networks 12 (June 2017), 63–71
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2020/en/d0en00570c Environmental and health risks of nanorobots: an early review - Environmental Science: Nano (RSC Publishing) DOI:10.1039/D0EN00570C
Received 29th May 2020 , Accepted 26th August 2020
First published on 27th August 2020
Two potential hazards are highlighted: (i) the use of hazardous materials and UV light in nanorobots, and (ii) the loss of propulsion/targeting control. Third, how current regulations are adapted to nanorobots is discussed. Current regulations for medical devices are clearly not adapted to nanorobots and it is even unclear which specific regulations might be applicable. In order to make the most of the use of nanorobots, we recommend they should be subject to broad, risk-related studies as well as dialogues with stakeholders and the public about the definition, purpose and controllability of nanorobot applications.
Active nanotechnology was defined as when “the nano entity does something elaborate such as absorbing a photon and releasing an electron, thereby driving a device, or moving in a specific and definable fashion across a surface”.
Although the exact distinction between the passive and active nanotechnology can be tricky, conventional nanoparticles and nanotubes currently used in existing nanoproducts3,4 generally belong to the category of passive nanomaterials. This is where most efforts in terms of risk-related research have occurred during the 2000s, in particular for a limited set of nanomaterials, including silver nanoparticles, titanium dioxide nanoparticles, silica nanoparticles, cerium dioxide nanoparticles, zinc oxide nanoparticles, iron nanoparticles, quantum dots, fullerenes, carbon nanotubes and graphene.5–9 Much less attention has been given to active nanomaterials, probably because of their limited production and use in society. However, one type of active nanomaterial is clearly on the march. Often referred to as science fiction, nanorobots are currently being extensively researched and developed, especially for medical applications where there is an effort to merge nanotechnology with pharmaceuticals.10,11 The most frequent application mentioned is drug delivery, in particular for site-specific cancer treatment through the delivery of tumor-killing drugs.12 Other envisioned areas of applications beside medicine include environmental monitoring and water remediation.13
Despite this development, research on risks related to nanorobots have so far been limited. History shows several examples of how the introduction of new technology that offered great benefits into society later turned out to also cause notable environmental and health impacts.14,15
A precise definition of the term ‘nanorobot’ is currently lacking. It is here tentatively defined as an individual nano-sized device able to perform a designated task. The nanometer size (referring approximately to the 1–100 nm size range) follows naturally from the term nanorobot, while the ability to perform tasks is central to any (also a macro-sized) robot and sets nanorobots apart from conventional, passive nanomaterials.
3. Potential nanorobot hazards
Several of the nanorobot designs described in section 2 offer the promise of significant health-related benefits, such as improved cancer therapy. However, considering what can been learned from previous late lessons with promising technologies offering great societal benefits, such as the X-rays and antimicrobials discussed in section 1, risks can outweigh the benefits for some applications of a technology. So far, only a few references to environmental and health risks can be found in the literature about nanorobots. Kostarelos58wrote briefly about the safety of nanorobots, commenting that nanorobots “will need to be toxicologically inert, degradable or expelled from the body”. One might note that this mainly refers to human toxicity and not subsequent environmental effects that might occur after the nanorobots have become expelled from bodies. Gao and Wang13wrote about the use of nanorobots (mainly nanorods) for environmental sensing, monitoring and remediation. They comment that “the potential toxicity of micro/nano-scale motors needs to be evaluated to prevent potential adverse environmental impacts”. However, they do not provide any specific recommendations on how that could be accomplished, despite envisioning wide-spread use of nanorobots in the environment. Suranaet al.59did a study on DNA nanorobots and their compatibility with the immune system of higher organisms. They comment that
foreign, ‘non-self’ DNA from other organisms can be harmful and therefore immunogenic, since they trigger the immune system: “Even though DNA is a natural biopolymer, when present at the wrong place at the wrong time it can elicit a strong inflammatory reaction”.
Therefore, they asserted that it is important to consider the various cellular and systemic responses that such DNA architectures might elicit, which are likely to be specie-specific. Such considerations have a dual purpose: it is both to keep the organism in questions safe from the DNA nanorobot but also to ensure the proper medical function of the DNA nanorobot in cells. Again, the focus is on human toxicological responses rather than on environmental toxicity.
To these considerations of nanorobot risks in the previous literature, we might add a number of potential hazards. That foreign DNA can elicit immunologic and inflammatory responses has been noted above. Other materials used in contemporary nanorobot designs (see e.g.Table 1) might also potentially have hazardous properties that warrant further investigations. For example, the nickel used in order to magnetically control the propulsion of several helices and nanorods is known to be allergenic, carcinogenic (though not in pure metallic form), toxic at high doses and in certain forms, as well as teratogenic at high doses.60 Allergenic reactions have already been seen for people working with nano-sized nickel powder.61 The silver sometimes used for making hinges in designs with several connected nanorods is also known to be toxic to organisms in the environment – both in nano-form and when dissolved into silver ions.62,63 However, silver is not toxic to humans. High silver intake results in discoloration of the skin and internal organs (argyria and argyrosis, respectively), both which do not seem to bring any negative health effects.62 In addition, the UV light used for propulsion in some nanorod designs is known to be able to cause skin damage and, in the worst case, skin cancer.
Foreign DNA, nickel, silver and UV light are all established hazards.
Whether their use in specific nanorobot applications constitute risks remains to be investigated. Novel hazards associated with nanorobots might be related to the control of nanorobot propulsion and navigation – whether by chemical propulsion, magnetic fields, sound waves, bioreceptor binding and/or light – potentially making the nanorobots travel to places in the human body and elsewhere where they are not supposed to. Should loss of propulsion control or targeting of an erroneous site occur, hazardous drugs might be delivered to healthy cells. An erroneous targeting might cause high concentrations locally, so that a small number of nanorobots potentially causes much harm.
Besides potential hazards, an additional aspect of risk is whether organisms will become exposed to the potential hazard. Whereas nanoparticles have typically been perceived as extrasomatic risks, released to the environment and subsequently taken up by organisms,64 the mainly medical applications envisioned for nanorobots mean that exposure and uptake to humans might be inherent in the use of nanorobots rather than unintentional. Environmental exposure might then potentially occur subsequent to excretion or discarding of the nanorobots. In addition, the use of nanorobots for environmental remediation also seems to imply a direct exposure to organisms in the environment,13 in that sense being similar to pesticides applied to agricultural land. The probability of nanorobot exposure to relevant organisms might thus be high for these two promising applications.
4. Regulating nanorobots
As in the early development of X-rays and antimicrobials, there is currently no regulation targeting the use of nanorobots specifically. Meeting the current approval requirements for medical products and devices is arguably one of most lengthy, thorough and expensive regulatory processes around, with various phases of clinical testing, safety and benefit assessment. However, regulations in the EU and elsewhere have still been criticized for being insufficient when it comes to more complex drugs.65It even remains unclear whether nanorobots are to be consider a medical device or a medicinal product, for which different sets of regulations apply in the EU – the Regulation of Medical Devices and Medicinal Products Directive, respectively.
5. Recommendations
The main applications envisioned for nanorobots are such that they might potentially become administrated directly to the human body or the environment (section 3). Such applications with potential for exposure, akin to those of pharmaceutical and pesticide applications, warrant consideration into the risks related to nanorobots. We identified two main potential hazards related to nanorobots at this early stage: (i) the use of conventional hazards, such as hazardous materials and UV light, as well as (ii) the loss of propulsion and navigation control (section 3). Furthermore, we note a lack of nano-specific regulation, making it uncertain whether current regulation will be able to identify and regulate nanorobot hazards at an early stage of development (section 4). In order to address this situation, we provide three recommendations for future research and action. The recommendations are based on three lessons learned from failing to respond to early warnings in the past,14which seem particularly relevant to the discussion about nanorobot risks: (i) acknowledge and respond to ignorance, uncertainty and risk in technology appraisal, (ii) ensure use of ‘lay’ knowledge, as well as specialist expertise, and (iii) systematically scrutinize claimed benefits and risks. Following the three recommendations would allow for making the most of nanorobots while avoiding that their use later turns out to cause harm to the environment and/or human health.
Although it is currently unknown whether nanorobots constitute a potential risk to human health and the environment…
Table 2 Ten questions recommended to be addressed in risk-related studies of nanorobots
1. What is the toxicity of nanorobots and their constituents to humans and other organisms?
2. Are nanorobots more hazardous than previous generations of passive nanomaterials?
3. How many nanorobots are expected to be produced and used in the future?
4. What is the likely future exposure of nanorobots to humans and organisms in the environment?
5. In which ways can the propulsion and navigation of different nanorobots be obscured?
6. How can existing regulations be adapted to cover potential risks of active nanomaterials such as nanorobots?
7. How can nanorobots be designed to be safe?
8. How can the benefits of nanorobots be quantified and compared to the potential risks?
9. What is peoples' risk perception of nanorobots?
10. What are the main societal concerns related to nanorobots?
For nanotechnology in general, there was an early effort already in 2004 to explore of the general public's attitudes towards nanotechnologies.73
Many of the identified areas of concern are still highly relevant for nanotechnologies in general and nanorobots in particular.
For instance, the public raised questions about the purpose and controllability of nanotechnologies, whether health and environmental considerations had been adequately addressed, whether existing regulation was up to the task, and whether lessons from the past had been learned…
https://web.archive.org/web/20190613041821/https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.4071 A DNA nanorobot functions as a cancer therapeutic in response to a molecular trigger in vivo | Nature Biotechnology
One Trillion 50 nanometer nanobots in a syringe will be injected into people to perform cellular surgery.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2014.163 Put more 'nano' in robotics | Nature Nanotechnology
https://futurism.com/pfizer-to-collaborate-with-prof-ido-bachelet
Pfizer will cooperate with the laboratory of Bar Ilan University Prof. Ido Bachelet in the production of his “DNA robots."
DNA “CONTAMINATION”?
NO, THIS IS THE TECHNOLOGY THEY USE
Prof. Bachelet has developed a unique method by which he is able to produce DNA molecules that can be “programmed” to research certain locations in the body and to carry out minor procedures.
The technology is fairly new for a drug company, but Pfizer has agreed to take up the challenge and support this technology, in the hope that it will make a contribution to the company at the proper time.
https://nano.biu.ac.il/node/3700
Bachelet’s work represents the first time that anyone has demonstrated the efficacy of a nano-robot-based logic system inside a living animal. But his study – which used the Blaberus discoidalis cockroach as a model system – begs the question: just how long will it take before swarms of nano-robots can be put to work battling human disease?
While the results are encouraging, Bachelet points out that a great deal of work will be necessary before nano-robotics become standard medical procedure, or even reaches clinical trial. Among the various challenges that remain, Bachelet’s group is currently focusing on making the robots invisible to the mammalian immune system so they can remain stable in the blood for hours or days.
Ultimately, Bachelet says, medical progress depends on good science – and economics.
“Today, surgery is expensive, and is only available to patients who have access to specialized operating theaters and trained medical personnel,” he says. “But the cost of fabricating a billion-strong team of medical nano-robots, and injecting it into the bloodstream to perform a specific procedure, is very low. This could revolutionize the practice of medicine and save lives all over the world.”
https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/whats-so-dangerous-about-smart-cities-anyway
Lack of Community Input
A first order issue is does the community where “smart city” technology will be deployed want it?
Erosion of Privacy and 4th Amendment Protections
While community input is a first order issue to deploying “smart city” technology, the rest of these harms are not delineated in any sequential or ranked order. As technology development moves faster than law, there is a trend of technology expanding possible searches by law enforcement and that expansion being challenged in court as a violation of our Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Chilling of 1st Amendment Rights
In the U.S. the first amendment protects the five freedoms of: speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition (protest) the government. The surveillance imposed by “smart city” could have a chilling effect on community members feeling comfortable participating in these protected activities for fear of harassment or retaliation by the state. As more instances of filming protestors are documented (such as in San Diego streetlight cameras, Miami University, Hong Kong) one could reasonably anticipate to be filmed and identified in public space. If public space becomes a place where one fears punishment, how will that affect collective action and political movements?
Discrimination / Oppression
Because “smart city” tech is applied to a given neighborhood, it shares the potential for discrimination rife in urban planning and public safety history and also a new power of extending those inequities to the digital worlds term that many have coined as “digital redlining”. Potential harms that flow from disproportionate use or disparate community impact include loss of opportunity, economic loss, and social determinants (dignitary harms, constraints of bias). Cities, such as Baltimore and DC, have closed-circuit television (CCTV) installed in in majority nonwhite areas, on average, than in majority white neighborhoods. Detroit has come under scrutiny by local activists for using facial recognition technology in public housing, spurring the introduction of Federal legislation to prohibit “the use of biometric recognition technology in certain federally assisted dwelling units.” These biases compound as data collection from strategically placed “smart city” and other surveillance technology increasingly inform policy decisions such as predictive policing. Seattle’s surveillance law requires Equity Impact Assessment reporting as part of their surveillance technology review process, but to date the city has articulated an inexpertise in measuring this impact other than examining how it comes up in public comment.
Loss of Accountable Government
Lastly as governments continue to outsource technology services to private vendors the vendors at play take on a quasi-government function without many of the accountability measures built into government functions such as public records access, public auditors, or consequences for elected officials if services do not meet community members expectations.
Kurzweil’s utopia:
https://bigthink.com/the-future/ray-kurzweil-singularity/
For some, this Singularity will be a utopia. For others, it will be a Terminator-style nightmare.
For some,
THE USE OF THIS NANOBOT TECHNOLOGY IS A CRIME OF GENOCIDE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION.
https://melanieswan.com/presentations/Kurzweil_MSFuturesGroup.pdf
Ban this research now- crime against humanity in the name of progress, technology gone mad - defiling the body is not the way to cure it. STOP or is the goal to rid Mother Earth of real humans in favor of robots in the near future. Freaky-soulless researchers- no ethics in sight only motive profit. Remember robots don’t eat, drive or procreate - who will be the customers once humans are eliminated. Does any one track this process to the end stage? Mindless quest for what? Control, profit and playing god.
Another good reason to exit this hell scape.