5 ms·
>Security implications of technology is never a valid argument against furthering technology. Never? So you would accept an Internet-connected pacemaker withou
by eurleif 13y ago
>Security implications of technology is never a valid argument against furthering technology.
Never? So you would accept an Internet-connected pacemaker without a second thought? There are clearly tradeoffs. Saying security should never overrule advancement seems a little extreme.
- Karunamon 13y agoSecurity is just another branch of technology. I'd see nothing wrong with a pacemaker being IP-connected (though the logistics of how you'd do that escape me) as long as the remote side used proper authentication, multifactor, etc.
- sliverstorm 13y agoBut why would you? An IP-addressable pacemaker serves what purpose, exactly? Two-factor or not, you are introducing risk, complexity, and power consumption for what?
- aestra 13y agohttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/business/12heart-web.html?_r=1& http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/business/12heart-web.html?... It says right there there are already Internet connected pacemakers. >But device makers have begun designing them to connect to the Internet, which allows doctors to monitor patients from remote locations. What's the benefit of wireless communication on pacemakers? Oh I don't know, how about having the ability to make a minor adjustment without having to go through a major surgery.