Chrysler added the ability to do over-the-air software updates in their cars (through the cellular network), and of course it got compromised. They've now locked the powertrain control system down so hard, you're even restricted from accessing components using a physically connected scan tool. To get anywhere now, you need to 1. have a scan tool with firmware that's compatible with their ludicrous security system, 2. connect that scan tool to the internet, and 3. subscribe to a service (for $50/year) to be able to get encryption keys.
The moral of this story is, I don't think it's a good idea to put your life in the hands of programmers, outside heavily regulated sectors like avionics. And even then, bad code killed a bunch of people.
Hi! I'm Jan. I'm an Engineering Community Manager. My <3 is with dev communities, diversity & inclusion and making the Tech Industry a safer place for everyone. Pronouns: he/they
My insulin pump was never intended to be algorithm-controlled like this. It's from 2007, and its protocol and communications were reverse engineered. Compromising systems isn't a bad thing, in my opinion, it's the intention that may or may not kill people.
If it wasn't for a bunch of developers (search for #WeAreNotWaiting) back in 2015 or so, I could be dead today, as one of 25 people with Type 1 die from a severe hypoglycemia.
This is why I use a 15 year old insulin pump. Because it this model was compromised at some point.
The world contains both "black hats" and "white hats," and something being compromised and on the internet gives access to both. Because of this, a cybernetic world would be one where bad computer security is fatal—or rather, much more fatal than it already is.
I suppose the problem with this question is, you're talking about two very different things: first, the balancing of concerns with wearing a device that could kill you to manage a medical condition that could kill you, and second, whether this stuff should go discretionary. Medical decisions are between you and your doctor; I have no opinion on them. For me, though, discretionary cybernetics is a no.
Hi! I'm Jan. I'm an Engineering Community Manager. My <3 is with dev communities, diversity & inclusion and making the Tech Industry a safer place for everyone. Pronouns: he/they
I agree with you on "compromised on the internet" part. This wouldn't be an option if my actors were exposed on the internet. They aren't.
Regarding discretionary cybernetics, I'm not sure I fully understand what you say. Do you mean non-regulated technological replacements for dysfunctional parts of your body shouldn't exist? What about building a custom prosthesis? Or a set of augmenting glasses that enables people with colorblindness to differentiate between colors?
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Chrysler added the ability to do over-the-air software updates in their cars (through the cellular network), and of course it got compromised. They've now locked the powertrain control system down so hard, you're even restricted from accessing components using a physically connected scan tool. To get anywhere now, you need to 1. have a scan tool with firmware that's compatible with their ludicrous security system, 2. connect that scan tool to the internet, and 3. subscribe to a service (for $50/year) to be able to get encryption keys.
The moral of this story is, I don't think it's a good idea to put your life in the hands of programmers, outside heavily regulated sectors like avionics. And even then, bad code killed a bunch of people.
This is also why I drive a '93 Miata.
My insulin pump was never intended to be algorithm-controlled like this. It's from 2007, and its protocol and communications were reverse engineered. Compromising systems isn't a bad thing, in my opinion, it's the intention that may or may not kill people.
If it wasn't for a bunch of developers (search for #WeAreNotWaiting) back in 2015 or so, I could be dead today, as one of 25 people with Type 1 die from a severe hypoglycemia.
This is why I use a 15 year old insulin pump. Because it this model was compromised at some point.
The world contains both "black hats" and "white hats," and something being compromised and on the internet gives access to both. Because of this, a cybernetic world would be one where bad computer security is fatal—or rather, much more fatal than it already is.
I suppose the problem with this question is, you're talking about two very different things: first, the balancing of concerns with wearing a device that could kill you to manage a medical condition that could kill you, and second, whether this stuff should go discretionary. Medical decisions are between you and your doctor; I have no opinion on them. For me, though, discretionary cybernetics is a no.
I agree with you on "compromised on the internet" part. This wouldn't be an option if my actors were exposed on the internet. They aren't.
Regarding discretionary cybernetics, I'm not sure I fully understand what you say. Do you mean non-regulated technological replacements for dysfunctional parts of your body shouldn't exist? What about building a custom prosthesis? Or a set of augmenting glasses that enables people with colorblindness to differentiate between colors?