NTT's Cool - Human Area Networking Technology

kvsnut writes "I4U is reporting about NTT's research project called RedTacton - It 'safely turns the surface of the human body into a data transmission path at speeds up to 10 Mbps between any two points on the body.' There is a pretty interesting site (uses flash) setup to showcase the technology. If you want to jump to a non-flash overview, try here. It be cool if I could sync my Treo (I'm saving for) by just touching a cradle (or heck the PC)."

Comments

Use Bluetooth

[SiMac]

What's the point beyond the coolness factor? Palm devices can already sync via 802.11b or Bluetooth. Wireless technologies can already go faster than 10 mbps, and are cheap and well-tested. If we can transmit data through the air, why do we need to transmit it through our bodies?

Re:Use Bluetooth

[ingo23]

It may be more secure than bluetooth - you need a physical contact. So for something like a digital keychain it would be quite convenient. It could be more practical than fingerprints (less errors) and let you authenticate just by touching the sensor.

On the other side, I will need another firewall for this!!!

Re:Use Bluetooth

[drinkypoo]

It would be awfully handy for implanted computers, like pacemakers. Wireless should be used only in situations where it is necessary. If contact is convenient it is a better idea. Air gaps are good. For instance when we finally get around to implanting systems to improve our senses we are going to want ways to pipe data in and out of them. Would you like your senses to be on tap (or for rent) wirelessly? I didn't think so. On the other hand, you could have optical and audio interfaces implanted, and have a computer device in a watch for example, which I obviously mention because it commonly touches the skin. You still want to use encryption so you can't just lean up against something and have all your devices' interfaces exposed to dirty, dirty networks, but raising the bar to involve touch is generally a good thing.

Re:More trouble than it's worth?

[Anonymous Coward]

It might seem that way, but you'd be surprised what a differnce it would make in practice. As an example: an 8-pound laptop is perfectly portable. Nothing really stopping you from taking it everywhere with you. But you will not, in fact, take it many places. A 3-pound laptop, on the other hand, you will take all over the place. So while there is nothing "hard" about plugging in a cable there is still a reason to avoid it if possible.

So not new tech

[way2trivial]

http://domino.research.ibm.com/Comm/bios.nsf/pages /pan.html
From 1997 at IBM

Re:More trouble than it's worth?

[QuantumG]

Uhhh hard. Every single time I have to plug a USB thumb drive into a PC it takes at least 5 minutes. Usually because I have to pull something else out to find a slot. You might be wondering what this technology would have over bluetooth. Well have you ever used bluetooth? You inevitably have to fiddle with it for minutes to find the menu option that lists the devices that you have already registered with and then fiddle more to map the name that is on the menu with the device that you can see, point at, and touch in the real would (but has no clear identifier on it that matches it with the menu option). All this technology is the reason why people don't like technology. The user interfaces are really unintuitive. Ultimately, loading a file from my portable data storage device onto a computer should be as simple as sitting down at the computer, selecting File -> Open and clicking the little icon of a happy user called "QuantumG's files". If someone else has the file it should be as easy as asking them to touch the computer and selecting "John's files". Transfering a file from my device to Johns should be as simple as the both of us touching a computer and dragging the files from my device to his.

And should someone at an lcd factory ever get off their ass and make a transparent lcd that fits into a contact lens or better yet, the membrane of your eye you'll be able to use your personal network to communicate with your mobile computer, storage and interface.

"safely"...

[ABeowulfCluster]

Once, smoking cigarettes was considered 'safe'. Putting radio waves thru the human body is never a great idea.

Better than Biological Authentication.

[stephenisu]

The biggest market I see for this (other than the obvious marketing/spy novel stuff) is user authentication. People like myself fear bioauthentication because, well if someone steals your identity, you are pretty much boned.

With this system, you can have a separate heavily encrypted key for each device you touch, and it can be changed if the need arises.
Death to all passwords!

You could know who entered each and every keystroke!

Re:Let's see...

[simcop2387]

thats got to be the worst pun i've ever seen on slashdot

Re:Nice, but diseased

[Agret]

And the handle on your shopping cart hasn't been touched by everyone before you?

Re:More trouble than it's worth?

[God! Awful 2]

You might be wondering what this technology would have over bluetooth. Well have you ever used bluetooth? You inevitably have to fiddle with it for minutes to find the menu option that lists the devices that you have already registered with and then fiddle more to map the name that is on the menu with the device

Sounds like you are just complaining about some flaws in the implementation of bluetooth rather than actually suggesting an advantage of the HAN approach. How does HAN really solve these problems? You still have to deal with the problem of disambiguation. You still have to have some kind of authorization mechanism so that every device you touch doesn't have instant access to every other device you touch. (Can you imagine a computer virus that literally spreads by touch?)

There are ways that the UI for bluetooth can be improved - to an extent. Security is always inconvenient. That's how Microsoft can stay ahead. Just ignore security and make your UIs better.

-a

Re:Ack!

[cybertears]

with a simple disposable firewall none of her information will be able to access your network and vice versa. These firewalls are already available at just about every place imaginable and come in packages of one, three and twelve. Larger packages can be found as well.

better safe than sorry

[Doc Ruby]

How do they know it's safe? Because they haven't done any tests to show it isn't safe? Because it doesn't fry their armhairs? Maybe it is safe, but why should we trust the vendors of the tech, who have no accountability, to say it is safe? We're just finding out about cellphones now, we've just started to find out about electrical fields and bone/cytoplasm growth, because all the vendors through history have said "it's safe", without testing.

Re:The early adopters of every new tech....

[seanadams.com]

...if only there were some way to use physical congress as a means of conveying the actual sensations...

The idea has been taken

[JPriest]

Sorry, I can remember reading about a patent filed years ago that did this exact thing. One of the ideas behind it was that if you had a PDA type device, you could exchange phone numbers/buisness cards etc. just by shaking hands. I am not sure of my exact source, but a quick google search turned up this published Oct. 1996.