[ExI] Cybernetics expert infects himself

[Mike Dougherty]

2010/5/27 Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net>
> If mass murder is the goal:
> A) Why limit it to those targets?
> B) There are far faster and more efficient methods.

I wasn't thinking mass murder.  More like the digital version of an STD.

> Nein.  We would not have an Internet today - at least not in nearly as wide use.
> The openness was a prerequisite to fast widespread adoption.

Right.  And the widespread adoption of implants is related to your
point about expense, the cheaper the better.

> 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.  1024-bit cryptography doesn't enter into
> it.  The hardware interface does, and it's more expensive
> to make something with enough power to do that kind of
> interface.

I completely agree it's about expense.  However, what's the expense of
opening a patient to provide a new piece of dumb hardware compared to
updating the software on an existing device?  If a device can be
updated there exists some potential for the update protocol to be
exploited.  All I was suggesting is that security should be part of a
device's initial design, not added on at the end.  Also security from
"it's difficult to get close enough to the device" is incomplete
security.  Though I admit people have widely varying ideas of secure
and how much is enough. (in my opinion their threshold is way too low;
eg: Facebook asks for my gmail account/password to find "friends" - no
doubt many people trust Fb with their inbox)