I agree and I wonder, is this 2014 or '1984'? Seems like it would be oblivious to accept the 'more convenient' chip under the skin method rather than the pill just for longevity reasons alone. And if you start with the pill then why not upgrade to the subcutaneous implant later. Disguised as benign assistance, the chip could be used for all sorts of things like phone authentication, point-of-purchase authorization, on-person medical records, etc – all marketed to ease our lives of this growing burden. Since the wireless chip/pill does not require any conscience effort on your part, your life will be easier and trouble free. Of course nobody, including governments, will ever track your every movement through the brave new world ...
While we're being gross- If you were to retrieve a bunch of pills before they got to the sewage processing plant, would they still work? If the legitimate owners of the pills are having to take replacements every day or two then there should be lots of "used" ones out there.
I donot how many people are using the latest iPhone offering of fingerprint scans. In most cases, biometric scans are enough for identity verifications. I donot understand the need to go for invasive technologies such as pills or implants.
Is there really a need for something that goes as far as the password pill? Are people having that much trouble with their passwords as it stands? Otherwise, it seems like the ethical issues and the initial discomfort may be hard to wash away. If our audience, mainly made up of engineers and people who are more likely to adapt to and welcome technology find it to be a nuisance, an encumberance or a downright invasion of bodily privacy--as seems to be the case--then the general public will likely feel the same way. Maybe years from now, when people are used to the pervasiveness of personal identification technology, this could see the light of day but even then only in limited use.
Yes, retina scans are better. I think that was used in a bond film where the eye ball was transplanted into the bad guy. I still don't think my data is worth it, but somebody's data is. If it is just for your laptop, they would have to steal it first. I guess the key is that you need to protect your passwords for financial and business accounts. Two factor authentication works well for those.
Crusty1, sounds like an interesting marriage ( Med Lab Scientist + electronics) sort of reminds me of the old Frankenstein movies with the "re-animation" of a body and all movie show electronics aka Jacob's Ladder. What the Jacob's Ladder had to do with giving life is a mystery to me, having once created one for a hunted house. Got some interesting shocks along the way, definitely "animated" me at that point!
Daleste, I would think that if more security is needed then they could use retina scans. If memory serves me correctly, fingerprint scanners can be tricked (Myth-busters did it) but retina scan seem much harder. I could see the password pill not getting very far especially when it is too easy to use your cell phone or a wireless fob. I do think the most useful application is in the medical monitoring area for getting an inside view without surgery.
I don't think the password pill will be swallowed by the consumers. Finger print sensors work fine for me. I don't have anything important enough for some one to cut off my finger to get my password. I'll leave that to the double naught spys.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.