Schneier on Security

vas pup • February 24, 2019 1:56 PM

Evidence-based recommendations aimed at reducing Illinois gun violence

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190221130245.htm

“Ilinois could reduce the number of people killed each year by gun violence by implementing ten policies supported by available research, according to a new report authored by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. The center is based at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.”

That part addressing root causes of violance regardless of tool (aka gun)caught my attention:

“providing funding to support community programs such as focused deterrence, outreach and conflict mediation involving high-risk individuals.”

@all: just some clarification on difference between Fascists (originated in Italy) and Nazis (originated in Germany). Former appreciated merits regardless of demographics (some Jews were high ranking members of their party up to 1938 -as best of my memory -when Adolf push Benito to accept German version of selection of people).
Latter from the very beginning appreciate DEMOGRAPHICS first up to psychical extermination of particular unwanted by their standards people regardless of their merits to the Germany. E.g. Nazi killed many Jews – veterans and heroes of WW1 who fought for Germany in tranches. Nazis forced prominent physicist out of the country based on their demographics only rather than utilizing their skills and knowledge.
For me Nazis are all those who put demographics (race, nationality, gender, etc.)first, and merits second when treating people. History shows the results of such practice vividly, and more than ones I recommended for all respected bloggers movie “Idiocracy’ which shows final point of such practice.
As usually, all logical arguments in accordance with blog policy highly appreciated. Emotions and personal attacks are not, and should be left for street protest.

vas pup • February 24, 2019 3:59 PM

Could hackers ‘brainjack’ your memories in future?

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47277340

“In 20 years’ time, the technology may evolve enough to allow us to capture the signals that build our memories, boost them, and return them to the brain.

By the middle of the century, we may have even more extensive control, with the ability to manipulate memories.
‘Brainjacking’

But the consequences of control falling into the wrong hands could be “very grave”, says Mr Pycroft.

Imagine a hacker has broken into the neurostimulator of a patient with Parkinson’s disease and is tampering with the settings. They could influence his or her thoughts and behaviour, or even cause temporary paralysis.

A hacker could also threaten to erase or overwrite someone’s memories if money is not paid to them – perhaps via the dark web.
If scientists successfully decode the neural signals of our memories, then the scenarios are infinite. Think of the valuable intelligence foreign hackers could collect by breaking into the servers of the Washington DC veterans’ hospital, for example.

[!!!]In a 2012 experiment, researchers from the University of Oxford and University of California, Berkeley managed to figure out information such as bank cards and PIN numbers just by observing the brainwaves of people wearing a popular gaming headset.

Controlling your past

“Brainjacking and malicious memory alteration pose a variety of challenges to security – some quite novel or unique,” says Dmitry Galov, a researcher at the cyber-security company Kaspersky Lab.

Kaspersky and University of Oxford researchers have collaborated on a project to map the potential threats and means of attack concerning these emerging technologies.

“Even at today’s level of development – which is more advanced than many people realise – there is a clear tension between patient safety and patient security,” says their report, The Memory Market: Preparing for a future where cyberthreats target your past.

It is not impossible to imagine future authoritarian governments trying to rewrite history by interfering with people’s memories, and even uploading new memories, the report says.

Unauthorised access

Hacking into connected medical devices is not a new threat. In 2017, US authorities recalled 465,000 pacemakers after considering them vulnerable to cyber-security attacks.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said ill-intentioned people could tamper with the devices, changing the pace of someone’s heartbeat or draining the batteries, with the risk of death in either scenario.

Humans represent “one of the greatest vulnerabilities” because we can’t ask doctors to become cyber-security experts, and “any system is only as secure as its weakest part”.

Mr Pycroft says that in the future, brain implants will be more complex and more widely used to treat a broader range of conditions.

But he gives a stark warning.

“The confluence of these factors is likely to make it easier and more attractive for attackers to try to interfere with people’s implants,” he says.

“If we don’t develop solutions for that first generation of implants, then the second and third generations will still be insecure – but the implants will be so much more powerful that the attackers will have the advantage.”

Should medical devices/implants pass kind of UL test on vulnerabilities as part of FDA approval process?

vas pup • February 26, 2019 3:56 PM

@Alyer Babtu • February 24, 2019 4:47 PM;
“Understanding of social health and ills can’t begin until the standard of “merit” has been clarified. That’s the problem with meritocracy – who decides what is of merit? On what basis ?”

Your questions are very reasonable. I could only provide my personal opinion/vision not pretending that is absolute truth.

(1)Merit is what is based on your own talents, efforts and achievements, and you should be rewarded for that.
You could not be rewarded or punished based on factors out of your control: race, nationality, gender,social status and/or wealth/connections of your parents.

When in Declaration of Independence there is statement ‘God create all man equal’, that is only applied to be equal for LAW. I feudal Europe (e.g.) there were separate laws for land lords, clergy, peasants, etc.
In biological sense each person is unique based of set of genes obtained from biological parents. That is why all idealistic ideas that you put all of them at the same equal environment and you will create level field is just illusion. But, as I recall some great scientist told genes is just 1% and other 99% is personal efforts to utilize them by hard work.
Do you see some black kids born in very unfavorable areas of poverty and crimes by their efforts become celebrities in sports, music, show business, movies?
That means just to be tall (genes) not enough to become good basketball player. You need hard work/training. On the other hand, being short (genes) to particular level could not be overcome by training to become good basketball player. You got what I mean. Same applied to some degree to math, science, chess and so on.

(2)Who decides? Those who have objective tools to decide on measurable metrics (quality and quantity). Sports is very good as example.
E.g. quantity – tennis, basketball, field athletics.
Quality – figure skating decided by set of independent judges/experts, but then still formalized in scores.

Whenever you substitute any measurable criteria by so called BS-type holistic approach, you will open wide gates for abuse/misuse of the system willful or otherwise.

In one of NY orchestra there were complains that musicians were selected for orchestra based on their demographics, not merits.
To stop such allegations, it was decided to provide audition of prospective members of the orchestra BEHIND the curtains, so evaluation of performance and decision on accepting musician as orchestra member was made purely on MERITS, not taking into consideration any irrelevant factors.

Definitely, such option is not always available, but that is the goal. Otherwise, you will have absolutely legitimate complain of prospective students of Asian decent regarding Harvard admission practice were merits were neither clearly specified nor uniformly applied regardless of applicant decent.