The digital world is evolution, per se — continuous, rapid, radical, and, by now, so pervasive that it is the Internet which is driving human evolution. It is the Internet which makes possible the future envisioned by genomics researcher Juan Enriquez, one where we choose what and who we are. It is the Internet which allows Intel Fellow Mark Bohr to foresee that "in the future, chips may become integrated directly with the brain, combining AI/human intelligence and dramatically enhancing our cognitive and learning abilities. ... lead[ing] to a "technological singularity" — a point in time when machine intelligence is evolving so rapidly that humans are left far, far behind." Is not the coming of the Internet a "butterfly effect," a change so profound that the world we know today simply disappears? (...)


Revolutionary evolution is the future — a series of paradigm shifts with unpredictable yet profound effects. Precisely because we are building upon an interconnected foundation of complex technologies, any small change may be extremely amplified. That Apple app store (cloud service) offers 650,000 applications, has 400,000,000 credit card numbers on file, and has engaged in 30,000,000,000 transactions. In dollar terms, that is $7 billion in revenue for app developers most of whom can be called "cottage industry." With respect to software development, this is revolutionary evolution. (...)


But even without directly implanted transducers of the sort described by Bohr, every nuanced movement or change in your orbit can be measured analyzed and correlated. So while there may be a temporary fear of direct transducer implants, your physical condition, actions and even intentions can be indirectly inferred from mega-sampling large number of interconnected transducers providing exactly the same result as an implanted transducer. (...)


Are you in control or entitled to be aware of the apps and transducers in your orbit? Would your apps or transducers have some sort of inferred or legal rights preventing you from turning them off or excluding certain ones? Is security merely a euphemism for control, and if so by whom? Is security evolving into an organic model perhaps one where your transducers have a kind of antibody that roams within your orbit identifying and destroying perceived malicious intruders, and if so what about the impact of false positives? Is everything we understand about security about to be obliterated? For that matter, is the meaning of "self" up for grabs?