IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine - July 2018 - 84

It is really about the importance of
including the end user, or patient in
this case, in the product life cycle
management process.
Michael: Yes, it sure is. Exactly. I am speaking at the
annual conference for the Australian Communications Media
Authority next month, and I will be using our discussion
today as a single case study to raise awareness. Presently,
some biohackers are even talking about hacking the brain,
and I am telling them you really should not be doing that
without medical expertise, even if it is in the name of citizen
science. Some of them are amateur engineers, and others are
fully fledged, qualified engineers but not medical people.
And I personally feel the brain is not to be experimented with
like this.
Olhoeft: It is like DARPA. They have a call-up at the
moment to have a million electrodes inside the brain so they
can communicate, not for therapeutic value like I have [3].
Michael: You are likely familiar with the DARPA project
from 2012 for a brain-implantable device that could be used
to aid former servicemen and -women suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety [4]. We did
a special issue on this in IEEE Technology and Society Magazine last year [5]. They have also claimed this device solution
could be used for memory enhancement. It sounds like the
cyborgization of our forces.
Olhoeft: That's like what I have. The latest one is more
like when you want to remote-control a vehicle or something.
The September 2017 IEEE Spectrum had an article about
Brain Racers using brain-controlled avatars to compete in a
cyborg Olympics [6].
Michael: And the communications for autonomous
weapons or override. Can a human be autonomous, for
instance? Last week, we were discussing some of the ethics
behind overriding someone's decision not to fire or strike at
a target. Or imagine the ability to remotely control a drone
just by using your thoughts, versus someone in a remote
location executing the fire or strike commands without
being in situ, by intercepting that communication stream.
Imagine the potential to intercept a person's thoughts and to
make them physically do something. This is where, for me,
the waters get muddied. I do not mind the advancements in
the cochlear space for instance, where deaf persons have the
ability to hear music and entertainment through an embedded technological device. I think that is another marvel,
really. But I'd be interested to hear your opinion about the
crossover between the medical and nonmedical spaces. Do
you think that is just life? That is just how innovation is?
That we need to get used to this? Or do you believe prosthetics are the only reason we should be implanting people
in the brain?
84 IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine

july 2018

Olhoeft: I think the only reason we should be implanting people is for therapeutic reasons. For instance, I have a
deep-brain stimulator for a specific disease. Others might
have a particular problem, or maybe it is to replace a part
of the brain that has been damaged physically. Because the
question becomes, [do] we [become] no longer human if
we go beyond prosthetics purposes? We have problems
with driverless cars, for instance, and people are talking
about mirrored systems and all sorts of electronics in them
that interfere with DBS. There was a paper that was published where researchers took about ten cars at different
times, and they discovered that the ones that were diesel
powered did not interfere, because they didn't have any
ignition system [7]. Conventionally powered cars that had
an electronic ignition system pad caused some interference.
But electrics and hybrid engines had problems with people
with implants [8]-[10].
Michael: So do you fear getting in a vehicle at any time?
Olhoeft: A Prius has eight computers inside it, Wi-Fi, and
Bluetooth, and the way they run the wiring from the batteries
to the front, it is not twisted wiring, it is just a straight pair of
wiring. If it was a twisted pair, there would be a lot less magnetic noise inside the car body.
Michael: So that's the car company trying to save
money, right?
Olhoeft: I really don't know. We have a Prius as well. I've
tested our car. We have two sets of batteries. The front-right
and rear passenger seats are okay, but the driver's position is
very noisy. There's a woman we know, when she drives her
Prius, her deep-brain stimulator turns off when the car goes
into charging mode [while braking].
Michael: Oh dear, this is a major problem. These issues
must get more visibility. They can no longer be ignored. This
is where consumer electronics come head-to-head with biomedical devices.
Olhoeft: That's why I don't drive. I've also sent letters to
the FCC and FDA, and I've not received any response.
Michael: This is truly an important research area. This
topic crosses over engineering, policy, and society. It is really
about the importance of including the end user, or patient in
this case, in the product life cycle management process.
Olhoeft: Agreed.
Michael: I worry about potential hackers, predatory hackers, switching people off, so to speak, in the future. My concern is that the more of us who bear these implantables for
nonmedical reasons in the future, the greater the risks.
Olhoeft: There is a well-known story of someone who has
had an internal insulin pump hacked, and an insulin dose was
changed so that it killed them [11], [12].
Michael: I do wonder, Gary, if this all has to do with
liability issues. There is simply no reason that companies
like Medtronic should not be engaging the public on these
matters. In fact, it is in their best interest to receive customer feedback.
Olhoeft: It's definitely a problem, and I don't know what
to do about that.

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine - July 2018