[ExI] Cybernetics expert infects himself

[Mike Dougherty]

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

> 1) Value.  What possible value can be gained from hacking the
> device?  For a pacemaker - at the most extreme, you've killed
> someone who was in poor enough health to need a pacemaker.  A
> bullet gets the job done much faster and cheaper than
> developing the custom hardware needed for this approach.  It
> is true that some systems will be hacked just for fun, but
> only if the hackers believe they are not doing substantial
> harm; practically no one is both smart enough to hack and
> sociopathic enough to kill random people - and those that are,
> have better ways to do it.
>

You know how long it would take for a smart sociopath to visit and shoot
everyone equipped with hackable implants?  Much easier to broadcast a virus
digitally.


> 2) Access.  Few if any devices implanted in the body have any
> business receiving from or broadcasting to wireless devices
> that are not on or very near the body.  That wastes power,
> and thus is simply not done.  Therefore, someone across the
> street has no way to hack in to any wireless devices inside
> you in the first place.  And that's assuming there is a
> wireless interface: many devices require physical contact, of
> a kind that is practically impossible to do discreetly.
> (Instead of "I pick your pocket", try "I open your ribcage".)
>

I agree this might be baseless fear-mongering.  However, as devices become
more featured it is important to prevent failure modes that could be avoided
by implementing security.  If the first four computers that made up the
earliest network had been less trusting of each other, we would have a much
more secure Internet today.  Unfortunately everyone is a friend of everyone
else on the Internet until they aren't.  Hackers only attack other people.
If you have a Mac you can't get viruses.  etc.


In short, the only way you're going to be uploading or
> downloading a computer virus with an implant, is if said
> implant is explicitly designed to do so.  Medical devices of
> the type he's warning about don't fall into that category.
>

Given the option of hackable med implant and 1024-bit cryptographically
secure med implant for only $20 more, which would you choose?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100527/5283c40b/attachment.html>