Motorola's electronic tattoo that acts as a ‘mobile microphone, lie detector and digital display

Well that's not scary at all is it?

Google's recent acquisiting looks like it's going to start paying off big time. Between this and Motorola's Project Ara it seems they are about to get back into the tech world in a big way.

Source

Motorola, now owned by Google, has applied for a patent for technology that seems like complete science fiction: an electronic tattoo to be placed on a person’s neck that acts as a “mobile microphone, lie detector and digital display.”

he tattoo would have its own power supply built-in and would transmit the sound through Bluetooth, near-field communication (NFC) or ZigBee.

The patent, filed in 2012 but published on Thursday, states that the tattoo could also be used as a lie detector, according to the patent. The tattoo would measure the electrical conductance of the skin, known as the “galvanic skin response.”

The galvanic skin response is used to indicate psychological or physiological arousal because both are linked to skin moisture, which causes a variation in electrical conductance.

“A user that may be nervous or engaging in speaking falsehoods may exhibit different galvanic skin response than a more confident, truth-telling individual,” the patent states.

I certainly would not be lining up for one of these tattoos. Seems like something that could and certainly would be abused from the get go.

What do you think ATS?

~Tenth

The only problem I see with the implementation of this is how to design it in as planned obsolesce, which is a must for our electronics industry to stay relevant.

How can Google continue to entice people to get the latest update tattoo if they still have their old one?

I can imagine the benefit to the agricultural sector and wildlife research.

Being able to tag and track animals with this could be exciting.

Could these tattoos be the foretold Mark of the Beast? Or maybe early stages to the build up of its implementation? That does make for one heck of a conspiracy theory does it not?

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

Being able to tag and track animals with this could be exciting.

Actually that had no crossed my mind. You're right, that would be exceptionally better than just leaving tags attached to their bodies I would think.

~Tenth

Wow this is just nuts! I contract for google and I had no idea they owned moto...

and this is a wireless neck device, right? Interfaces with bluetooth and such, but means there's a way to hack it and reprogram it possibly. My mind is racing with James Bond style scenarios where they send a harmful overload signal to this neck device making it blow your head clean off, yeah maybe a bit paranoid.

But yeah, I would not step in line anytime soon for this technology... this is madness.

S+F for bringing this to my attention

reply to post by tothetenthpower


i just can't wait for this exciting new technology that eviscerates any remnant of freedom and privacy. I can't decide whether to get the latest veri-chip, rfid or mark me up like frikking cattle tattoo....please , please could you brand it on me to further entice the experience ?

tothetenthpower
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Being able to tag and track animals with this could be exciting.

Actually that had no crossed my mind. You're right, that would be exceptionally better than just leaving tags attached to their bodies I would think.

~Tenth

Yep, that would be nice for wildlife tracking; however, the patent application features a drawing of a human for this, not a pileated woodpecker.

This isn't Dystopian at all. Less "neat" possible uses:

1. galvanic skin response could be used for behavioral monitoring
   
2. has wireless which could allow for the monitoring of conversations/responses from remote locations/devices
   
3. picture features a number being associated --> GPS tracking of individuals
   
4. No apparent way to turn it off --> constant 24/7 audio/behavorial monitoring --> severe privacy issues
   

I personally think it's deeply troubling and I believe that there are improved methods already in existence for the tagging of wildlife that don't involve the physical external tag.

I know a few people that will probably be lining up for theirs. Their freakin phones are practically attached to them at all time now.

Last time I was over at a friend’s place he spent most of the time texting and BS than anything else. I wound up leaving to go do things. The next day he called and asked why I left. I told him I was on a different phone plan.

Grimpachi
I know a few people that will probably be lining up for theirs. Their freakin phones are practically attached to them at all time now.

Last time I was over at a friend’s place he spent most of the time texting and BS than anything else. I wound up leaving to go do things. The next day he called and asked why I left. I told him I was on a different phone plan.

I called out my best friend on the same behavior years ago while we were out for the night and she spent most of it texting away on her phone while I just sat and watched her. The interesting thing was that what I said really hit home with her. Now she complains about people who do that to her and calls them out on it, lol. I don't even know if she recalls that she once was the same way.

I find it really disconcerting that there are so many that would line up for this (though this one, not so sure) or other additional wifi eyes on things. It's quite stunning to me really that not even 40 years ago, our nation was screaming about the phone lines being bugged of a few people and now we've become a country where companies are creating technology that essentially bugs a human being and people are lining up for it. But hey, any new tech is "smart" from "smart"phones to "smart" dishwashers, tvs or heck, you can even have a "smart" clothes dryer. I've really begun to equate the usage of the term "smart" to actually be newspeak for "idiot".

I kinda like it.

These need be a requirement for every politician holding any every office.
The lie detector could then be linked to a light imbedded into their forehead that flashes conspicuously every time they lie.

This song would also be a thing of the past.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


Whereas I can empathize with the frustration about lying politicians, I think that such a sentiment is at risk of dehumanizing another human being simply on the basis of a group association. Who else could we do this to? Bankers, used car sales men, lawyers, felons, law enforcement, intelligence agents and more could, through public opinion, possibly be painted with the same dehumanizing light. However, each one would have such an inherent flaw within it that one could find directly within our Bill of Rights.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


My initial response was partially out of humor.

It does, however, highlight implementation in the social forum that could indeed result in quite the debate.

Terms like "dehumanizing" might be going a little bit too far as it applies to keeping anyone in public offices (supposedly representing their constituents as opposed to their own self interests) honest.

What's the point of the swearing in oath of any of these offices, if not meant as a promise of fidelity to their constituents as opposed to their own self interests?
Politicians are suppose to be accountable to their constituency, well, at least in democratic nations.

It'd certainly be interesting were some politicians to kick off a social campaign in voluntarily and conspicuously wearing such a device as a testament of fidelity to their constituents, where those politicians not wearing any such would then gain an association with dishonesty for their refusal to follow suit in such voluntary action.

Of course, then, there would always be debate regarding the functional efficacy of such devices as well as questions of tampering, and even wireless hacking to force a false positive.

Still, the device brings up some interesting questions regarding its potential future uses, not only in the traditional Orwellian sense, but, also in reverse-Orwellian roles.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


ABSOLUTELY INDEED TENTH,

Hideous, horrific, satanic.

How many different variations on a kind of MARK OF THE BEAST do they need? Sheesh.

May God have mercy on us.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


If it's voluntary (and I could see that as a great platform in this day and age lol), then I'd have no problem with it. We all are responsible for the choices that we make for ourselves. The elimination of choice, however, denies those express and implied rights given to us within our Bill of Rights and that's where it could become dehumanizing. In many ways, it'd fall into the same lump of unconstitutional activities that we have engaged in against specific groups historically.

Where devices such as this and all those wifi enabled home devices really concern me though is when choice no longer becomes a viable option. As a society, we are deeply concerned about obsolescence. It hits us in the "competing with the Jones'" sense as well as in terms of employability. As more technologies arise that basically implement more and more technology within our own physical being, then at what point could such devices like Motorola's become standardized for the purpose of keeping employees honest and where choosing to not wear one implies that one is prone to deceive?

These kind of technologies deeply worry me because they could be so readily abused. Our population isn't getting smaller but our job base is due to automation. It is still an employers' market and that will only increase as time goes on. At what point is it that actually installing tech into our tissues is going to be a deciding factor for employment because it is an employers' market? There's no light at the end of the tunnel on that future.

Well this is a tremendous waste of resources. This "device" would make little to no sense -- someone mentioned about tagging animals -- Such a device would ultimately be expensive to launch and maintain and wouldn't be worth it in the long run. I'm surprised Motorola came up with this.

~Sovereign

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Oh shrimp!

This is starting to get scifi b movie creepy.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Excellent points.

Yeah, NEWSPEAK indeed.

And the Eloi sheeple bleat meekly as they shuffle deeper into the caverns of the Morlachs . . .

for dinner

. . . as the main course.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


For some of us studying globalism for 45 years . . .

it got Sci-fi B movie creepy some time ago.

twoday.net...

Ain't tyranny grand . . . . grandly horrific . . . except that the willfully blind sheeple aiding and abetting it are even more horrific in their ignorance and stupidity.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


I don't entirely disagree with your points.
However, I've a difficult time seeing anyone accepting any attempts to institute such control measures as compulsory.

Anyone attempting to institute such may as well wave a flag around proclaiming "Take me to court over privacy issues".
They'll be asking for it, and unless they can afford the legal horsepower as well as being prepared for a long siege that gets heard in one court, appealed, kicked up to higher court, etc., then it'd be counterproductive to even think of any kind of implementation until there's precedence allowing for risk assessment versus benefit data.

If the technology actually goes anywhere, and isn't just a novelty application with possible promise that never gets any headway, we'll likely see initial application of the product in the voluntary public social forum as a non-official litmus similar the photo tagging phenomenon on Facebook that assisted so much in the development of better facial recognition solutions.

We, the general public, are all more than happy to spy on ourselves, and even flaunt our private lives to the public. We may see similar adopted with this.

Sounds like more convergence. Phone is now a fashion accessory as well as a calculator, time piece, video player etc etc etc ...

Is inevitable in a way. The lie detector seems a bit creepy, but its not like the technology is there yet. If anything, it seems a bit of a dangerous thing to roll out as a gimmick with a phone. Can you imagine the first American parent to sue them after getting false positives whilst water boarding their children?