Wired magazine recently came out with this article on how once neural implants and prosthetics become more commonplace, they will also be open to hacking. My comments are in bold italics.
Hackers who commandeer your computer are bad enough. Now scientists worry that someday, they’ll try to take over your brain.
In the past year, researchers have developed technology that makes it possible to use thoughts to operate a computer, maneuver a wheelchair or even use Twitter — all without lifting a finger. But as neural devices become more complicated, and go wireless, some scientists say the risks of “brain hacking” should be taken seriously.
 |
This is some scary stuff, very Orwellian
“Neural devices are innovating at an extremely rapid rate and hold tremendous promise for the future,” said computer security expert Tadayoshi Kohno of the University of Washington.
“But if we don’t start paying attention to security, we’re worried that we might find ourselves in five or 10 years saying we’ve made a big mistake.”
Understatement of the year.
Hackers tap into personal computers all the time. But what would happen if they focused their nefarious energy on neural devices, such as the deep-brain stimulators used to treat Parkinson’s and depression, or electrode systems for controlling prosthetic limbs?
For one how about if the anti-depression brain zappers were instead used to incite other emotions, such as love for certain politicians, or hatred for certain peoples. This could be accomplished by stimulating these emotions during campaign commercials, or news stories.
According to Kohno and his colleagues, who published their concerns July 1 in Neurosurgical Focus, most devices carry few security risks. But as neural engineering becomes more complex and more widespread, the potential for security breaches will mushroom.
This I agree with, but not just for those of us with implants; transcranial magnetic stimulation is becoming smaller, easier, and more focused. Plus you better believe somebody somewhere is working on doing it from a distance. Imagine the disaster when someone shoots you with an “awe and worship” beam while showing you pictures of Swastikas and Nazi propaganda? It’s insanely paranoid talk, but some of the tech already exists and more is on the way.
“It’s very hard to design complex systems that don’t have bugs,” Kohno said. “As these medical devices start to become more and more complicated, it gets easier and easier for people to overlook a bug that could become a very serious risk. It might border on science fiction today, but so did going to the moon 50 years ago.”
So in 15 years Norton will be popping up in our retinas asking if we want to renew our “Norton Impl-Ant-i Virus”. FYI Norton if you’re reading this, when you come out with an antivirus for neural implants, I want a cut if you use that name.
Some might question why anyone would want to hack into someone else’s brain, but the researchers say there’s a precedent for using computers to cause neurological harm. In November 2007 and March 2008, malicious programmers vandalized epilepsy support Web sites by putting up flashing animations, which caused seizures in some photo-sensitive patients.
How about “thought viruses” that turn entire groups of people into cultists? Or just plain willingly hand over their money to hackers? Or hold their feelings for ransom? I’m going to stop giving out ideas by citing hypothetical scenarios.
“It happened on two separate occasions,” said computer science graduate student Tamara Denning, a co-author on the paper. “It’s evidence that people will be malicious and try to compromise peoples’ health using computers, especially if neural devices become more widespread.”
A new brand of criminals that will need a new brand of cops.
 |
In some cases, patients might even want to hack into their own neural device. Unlike devices to control prosthetic limbs, which still use wires, many deep brain stimulators already rely on wireless signals. Hacking into these devices could enable patients to “self-prescribe” elevated moods or pain relief by increasing the activity of the brain’s reward centers.
This, like most things, would be great in moderation. Who wouldn’t like to just give themselves a pick-me-up when they’re feeling down? The problem would be those of us that decided to give ourselves several consecutive days of orgasmic bliss, and then starved to death by forgetting to eat. It reminds me of BTL chips from Shadowrun or “the wire” from that scifi book series I can’t remember the name of.
Despite the risks, Kohno said, most new devices aren’t created with security in mind. Neural engineers carefully consider the safety and reliability of new equipment, and neuroethicists focus on whether a new device fits ethical guidelines. But until now, few groups have considered how neural devices might be hijacked to perform unintended actions. This is the first time an academic paper has addressed the topic of “neurosecurity,” a term the group coined to describe their field.
I think it’ll be with in my lifetime that human puppet shows will become reality. Watch Ghost in the Shell or most other things by Masamune Shirow and you’ll see what I’m getting at.
“The security and privacy issues somehow seem to slip by,” Kohno said. “I would not be surprised if most people working in this space have never thought about security.”
Kevin Otto, a bioengineer who studies brain-machine interfaces at Purdue Universty, said he was initially skeptical of the research. “When I first picked up the paper, I don’t know if I agreed that it was an issue. But the paper gives a very compelling argument that this is important, and that this is the time to have neural engineers collaborate with security developers.”
Of course it is! It’ll open up another trillion dollar industry, full of fear mongering used to attract customers.
It’s never too early to start thinking about security issues, said neural engineer Justin Williams of the University of Wisconsin, who was not involved in the research. But he stressed that the kinds of devices available today are not susceptible to attack, and that fear of future risks shouldn’t impede progress in the field. “These kinds of security issues have to proceed in lockstep with the technology,” Williams said.
Not susceptible to attack, unless the brainwashing lasers I came up with earlier in the article are used. All it’ll take is someone with lots of money and little ethics. Maybe the fears of future risks SHOULD impede progress in this field. Handle as many foreseeable security issues as you possibly can before you try to move on, as Kohno says further down.
History provides plenty of examples of why it’s important to think about security before it becomes a problem, Kohno said. Perhaps the best example is the Internet, which was originally conceived as a research project and didn’t take security into account.
See?
“Because the Internet was not originally designed with security in mind,” the researchers wrote, “it is incredibly challenging — if not impossible — to retrofit the existing Internet infrastructure to meet all of today’s security goals.” Kohno and his colleagues hope to avoid such problems in the neural device world, by getting the community to discuss potential security problems before they become a reality.
“The first thing is to ask ourselves is, ‘Could there be a security and privacy problem?’” Kohno said. “Asking ‘Is there a problem?’ gets you 90 percent there, and that’s the most important thing.”
I think that my commentary alone suggests that YES there is in fact a problem. Now it’s just up to the big dogs to solve them as best they can before they happen.
Popularity: 2% [?]
