Technology & Science

Can “Smart Dust” Watch or Control Humans? What the Technology Can and Cannot Do

A viral video shared by Tucker Carlson combines real scientific advances with alarming claims. Here is what researchers have actually demonstrated.

By The New England Voice

Microscopic sensor technology and surveillance nanotechnology concept

A recent video posted on Tucker Carlson’s social media warned viewers about increasingly small surveillance technologies. It showed military drones, helicopters, protective masks, tiny electronic components and devices said to float through the air like dandelion seeds. The message suggested that technology could eventually move beyond watching people and begin controlling them.

The images are unsettling, but the video combines several different technologies as though they were one system. Some of the devices shown are real. However, the suggestion that invisible cameras can secretly enter people and control their bodies is not supported by the available scientific evidence.

What is “smart dust”?

“Smart dust” is a broad term for extremely small electronic devices that may contain sensors, processors and wireless communication components. Researchers have explored possible uses in environmental monitoring, agriculture, industry and medicine.

The name can be misleading. These devices are not necessarily as small as ordinary particles of household dust, and they do not all perform the same function. A sensor that measures temperature or humidity, for example, is not automatically a camera, tracking device or mind-control instrument.

Sensors that float like dandelion seeds

In 2022, researchers at the University of Washington announced battery-free wireless sensing devices inspired by the way dandelion seeds travel through the wind. The millimeter-scale prototypes use lightweight solar cells for power and can transmit collected information wirelessly.

According to the university, the devices were designed for environmental sensing. Researchers said that a drone could release many of them over an area, potentially creating a network to gather information such as temperature, humidity or other environmental conditions.

The experiments demonstrated that the devices could travel approximately 50 to 100 meters in a gentle or moderate breeze. They were not described as cameras, and the research did not demonstrate that they could secretly enter or control the human body.

Tiny cameras also exist — but that is a different technology

Scientists have also developed very small wireless camera systems inspired by insect vision. University of Washington researchers created a tiny, mechanically steerable camera known as “BeetleCam,” which could be carried by a live beetle or a miniature robot.

That accomplishment raises legitimate questions about surveillance and privacy. But it should not be confused with the dandelion-inspired environmental sensors. The floating sensors and insect-mounted cameras are separate projects with different designs, sizes and purposes.

What about devices inside the human body?

Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley have developed “neural dust”: tiny wireless sensors intended to be implanted near nerves, muscles or organs. These devices use ultrasound from equipment outside the body to supply power and transmit measurements.

Early research tested the technology in animals, including recording activity from a rat’s peripheral nervous system. Related research has explored whether miniature implants could someday help monitor or stimulate nerves for medical purposes.

This is real and important scientific research, but it is not the same as a microscopic camera secretly circulating through a person. The demonstrated devices were deliberately implanted, required external equipment and were created to measure or stimulate biological signals — not to take photographs, read thoughts or remotely control an entire human being.

Where the viral warning goes too far

The Carlson video raises a fair concern: as cameras, sensors and wireless devices become smaller, governments and the public will need serious discussions about privacy, consent, military use and regulation.

However, presenting all miniature technologies as a single invisible surveillance-and-control system creates a misleading impression. Current evidence supports the existence of:

  • Small environmental sensors that can be dispersed through the air;
  • Tiny cameras that can be mounted on insects or miniature robots; and
  • Experimental implantable sensors designed for medical research.

It does not establish that microscopic cameras are presently being dispersed into the public, entering people without their knowledge or controlling humans like characters in a video game.

The bottom line

The underlying technology is not entirely fictional, and its future uses deserve close public scrutiny. But the distinction between what has been demonstrated, what researchers hope to develop and what a dramatic social-media video predicts is essential.

The public should ask serious questions about emerging surveillance technology. Those questions are strongest when they are based on verifiable evidence rather than fear.

“The public should ask serious questions about emerging surveillance technology. Those questions are strongest when they are based on verifiable evidence rather than fear.”

Sources

  • University of Washington — “Tiny battery-free devices float in the wind like dandelion seeds,” March 16, 2022: www.washington.edu
  • Nature — “Wind dispersal of battery-free wireless devices,” March 2022: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  • University of Washington Allen School — Research on the BeetleCam wireless camera system: news.cs.washington.edu
  • UC Berkeley — “Sprinkling of neural dust opens door to electroceuticals,” August 3, 2016: news.berkeley.edu