IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Summer 2014 - 17

evolved from landline phones of the past hundred
years. But wearables seem to always point to The Terminator, Minority Report, and Iron Man for technical
explanations and social modeling. There is no precursor to a full-scale wearable computer platform. This
condition incites both euphoria and terror. But it also
reveals a gap.
I am fascinated by the leaps-of-faith in the field
of emergent wearable technology. But I also believe
these latest technological developments require much
closer exploration. An increasing number of futurepromised digital gadgets- from heads-up eye displays to brain-computer interfaces to bionic contact
lenses to digital skin technologies -are emerging or
being promoted in the mainstream news media. In my
book Ready to Wear, I claim "despite the common
term human-computer interaction, much technology
goes unexplored as to its impact on people and, more
specifically, the concepts and embedded meanings
that affect humans. [I] analyze the ongoing rhetorical
friction between technology that strives to augment
aspects of humans and language about technology,
which often results in both humanizing and dehumanizing textual constructions" [2]. We need to explore
how devices will affect digital life at the design stage
and not only rely on policy-making after the fact,
when it is too late.
Beyond the gadgets, clips, wristworns, and glasses,
wearable tech drives toward more natural interaction
with applications. Fueled by a goading popular culture, a growing movement exists that encourages us
to use the body itself, namely, the skin, as a medium
of communication. On October 16, 2012, Wired
Magazine writer Hugh Hart reviewed True Skin,
a six-minute short film released on Vimeo after it
achieved "viral liftoff" within days of release [3]. He
writes: "Sexbots, a deadpan antihero, a creepy futuristic black market for implants and a psycho-cyborg
cliffhanger [which] all get crammed into True Skin,
a dazzling sci-fi short that reportedly has Hollywood
going nuts" [3]. The story features a narrator called
"Kaye" who is immersed in a vivid transhumanist dystopia with his digital skin and other bodily
augmentations (see Fig. 1). The idea tantalizes and
terrifies us, but it reveals our desire to explore the
paradigm of skin-based computing.
using human skin as a computer interface in the
real is a new frontier. recently, advances have been
made concerning the idea of an artificial digital skin,
sometimes called "electronic skin" or "smart skin."
right now, it is a heavily sensationalized breakthrough heralded as a future device that could "revolutionize patient monitoring" in healthcare situations
[4]. resembling a child's temporary tattoo, electronic
skin can act as a sensor monitoring the body for
various muscle activities and vital signs, including
IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

SuMMEr 2014

Fig. 1. "Kaye" © Stephan Zlotescu, N1ON.

brainwaves and heart activity. However, in the same
articles that discuss it as a medical breakthrough,
it is often touted as a future technology that will be
used in our everyday lives, e.g., "Skinlike Electronic
Patch Takes Pulse, Promises New Human-Machine
Integration" [5]. The technology is framed as a mesmerizing future controller, implying that we will use
these patches to interact directly with our computing
devices, or even surrounding objects if the Internet of
Things comes to pass. We might be able to communicate with others in ways never imagined. We are told
that these patches will encourage a physical freedom
with no keyboards, wires, mice, or glasses to obstruct
interaction. We could hide them completely under
clothes providing a surreptitious sense of privacy not
afforded by other wearable tech.
And don't we have a right to hide our computers? But many unanswered questions surround these
devices. Will they set up a paradigm that allows
people to be surveilled by others on very personal
terms? Who will be allowed to monitor our skin to
read the internal workings of the body? Will they
block unwanted interactions? What are the ramifications of this technological leap-of-faith beyond the
healthcare context?
These questions need to be addressed at the design
stage and not at the moment of release.
Society clings to the belief that wearable tech is
imminent, creating an aura that impedes our control
of that emergence. I argue that sometimes technology
can spawn dehumanizing effects while it strives for
the opposite. As mainstream media celebrate technology such as Google Glass and so many other new
wearable devices, we need to take a much closer look
at how they frame our culture, our society, and us.
Future proposed technologies march on a path to
emergence amid a zeitgeist that implies such a faith
in them - but we each need to ask: do I really want to
be Iron Man?
|

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Summer 2014