Socio-technical context for insertable devices

Abstract

In this article, we show that voluntarily inserting devices inside the body is contested and seek to understand why. This article discusses insertables as a source of contestation. To describe and understand the social acceptability, reactions toward, and rhetoric surrounding insertable devices, we examine (i) the technical capabilities of insertable devices (the technical context), (ii) human reactions toward insertables (the social context), and (iii) the regulatory environment. The paper offers explanations to the misperceptions about insertables.

Assessing the Acceptance of Cyborg Technology with a Hedonic Technology Acceptance Model

“…The fact that theoretically data in insertable devices may be vulnerable to hacking [20] or that it may allow for user surveillance can fuel conspiracy theories that, from a societal norm perspective, discourage the use of insertable technologies [8]. The findings in [30,31] revealing that concerns about privacy and personal security significantly negatively impact the use of insideables may support this assertion.…”

“…Theoretically, due to the electronic nature of most of these devices, there are concerns regarding privacy and excessive surveillance due to its use [52]. However, this danger must be mitigated by the fact that RFID and NFC have limited coverage, store minimal information [8], and have poor connectivity with other devices [16]. Nonetheless, if these risks materialize, users' effectiveness in their daily tasks will decrease.…”

“…In the use of implantable technologies, there is a mainstream point of view considering that practices such as body hacking are "weird" [18]. While the use of these technologies for medical purposes is commonly accepted, their use in enhancing capabilities raises ethical controversies [6,8] that have been tested as relevant in empirical analyses. Thus, Ahadzadeh et al [38] observed that ethical perceptions such as moral equity diminish the influence of perfectionism on behavioral intention to adopt brain implants.…”

“…Although many countries have health regulations regarding aspects related to the implementation of insertables such as the administration of anesthetic substances, these devices often lack health regulations in many countries [8], thus resulting in a lack of explicit authorization from health authorities [51]. Consequently, surgeons are hesitant to perform the insertion, deeming it unnecessary [22], and as a result, these devices are typically implanted in tattoo centers [8] or by the users themselves [51]. This concern may be exacerbated by the pace of evolution of nanotechnologies, which outpaces regulatory measures on data protection [59].…”

“…The use of implantable technologies for medical purposes, such as pacemakers or cochlear implants, whose purpose is to restore damaged vital functions, does not seem controversial [2]. However, the use of implantable technologies for nonmedical purposes raises various social and ethical concerns [6][7][8].…”