For some reason, IE could only count to 12 in this jsfiddle:
Most of the time, when users get infected with a computer virus or a Trojan, it’s a nuisance. But what happens when an important person becomes a victim of a cracker like your doctor?
How about this story:
I got a mail from a good friend. It had no text, just a link. I clicked the link and a web site of a big pharmaceutical company. It was a bit odd but I thought nothing of it. I’m a doctor, so I visit a lot of medical websites.
A couple of days after that, I got mails from old friends that thanked me for getting in touch with them again after such a long time. I was puzzled.
Yesterday, I got an email from myself. That I never wrote. It seems when I clicked the link above in my web mail, “something” happened.
Apparently, everyone in my address book got spammed.
The attackers got the address book. Which is inside the mail software. Which means they had access to the mail software. Which means they had access to all the mails. Do you exchange mails with your doctor? How much do you like the idea that “someone” out there had access to those mails?
We need to fix computer security.
Every now and then, an idiot realizes that his life isn’t exciting enough and decides to do something about it. Note: I apply humor to horror.
Some people (I think of them as idiots as well, just a different flavor) think that arming everyone is the best solution to this problem. Maybe these people probably never get angry.
Anyway. Here is my attempt at a solution: Data contracts.
A data contract is a contract which is attached to data.
Example: I could attach a contract to data which my cell phone produces, for example, “code looking for the signature of gunshots can access data which the microphone produces.” Similarly, I could attach “code looking symptoms of mass panic can access data from my mobile’s acceleration sensors.” And lastly, “code which detected mass panic or gunshots is allowed to access location data on my mobile.”
To build such a system, all data needs to be signed (so it can be attributed to someone) and it needs to contain the hash code of the contract. Big data services can then look up people by their signature (which would also allow to create a public / shared signature for an anonymous entity) and from there, get the data contracts.
Now that in itself doesn’t protect against abuse of data by greedy / evil corporations. The solution here is the same as in the “real” world: Auditing. People applying for access to this system need to undergo an audit where test data is fed into the system and auditors (which can be humans or bots or both) validate the operation. This results in a digital document signed by the auditors which will then allow them to access the data feeds.
This approach would then protect my privacy from people wanting my movement profiles to annoy me with adverts while safety services could still use the data to automatically detect disasters and dispatch help without me having to fumble for my phone while running for my life.
On the downside, attackers will start to shoot mobile phones.
If we look into the future, unstable people could be sentenced to share some of their data with automated systems which monitor their mental state – I’m positive that several companies are working on systems to determine the mental state of a person by looking at sensor data from their phones or fitness sensors as you read this. Of course, we’d need an improved justice system (our current one is too busy with things like patent lawsuits or copyright violations) with careful balance and checks to prevent another kind of idiot (the one which doesn’t believe in “everything has a cost”) to run amok with this (i.e. putting “unwanted” people into virtual jails).
There is a certain amount of “bad things happening” that we have to accept as inevitable. Everyone who disagrees is invited to move to North Korea where they have … ah … “solved” this already.
For everyone else, this idea has a few holes. It needs computer readable contracts, a way to negotiate contracts between computers (with and without human interaction), it needs technology for auditors where they can feed test data into complex systems and see where it goes.
I think the computer readable contracts will happen in the next few years; negotiating contracts and knowing what contracts you have is a big issue with companies. Their needs will drive this technology. Eventually, you’ll be able to set up a meeting with a lawyer who will configure a “contract matching app” your mobile. When some service wants your data, the app will automatically approve the parts of the contract which you already agree, and reject those which you’ll never accept. If the service still wants to do business with you, then you’ll get a short list of points which are undecided, yet. A few swipes later, you’ll be in business or you’ll know why not.
The test data problem can be implemented by adding new features to the big data processing frameworks. Many of these already have ways to describe data processing graphs which the framework will then turn into actual data processing. For documentation purposes, you can already examine those graphs. Adding signature tracking (when you already have to process the signatures anyway to read the data) isn’t a big deal. Auditing then means to check those signature tracks.
It’s not perfect but perfect doesn’t exist.
I’m one of those people who can’t tear their eyes from blinking, moving stuff. Web advertising is pure hell for me. Thank god for ad blockers.
But what about real life ads? Did you notice all those billboards popping up lately? They are everywhere. Recently, the learned to move.
Time to do something about it: http://jonathandub.in/cognizance/
Recently, I followed a discussion about free will. The starting point was the question whether a million exact clones which are placed in the same situations would shows the same behavior and whether they would diverge over time.
My stance is that they would behave identical in the beginning but, subject to quantum physics, small differences would creep in. Big things like hair color or beliefs would be very stable. A complex decision, which could go either way, might be influenced by the fact that a molecule binds a few nanoseconds later than in another clone. The neuron would fire slightly later than the other ones and a different option would be chosen.
Now which change to Life would bring it to the next level? Make it able to compute more than Turing?
If there is no metaphysical soul, no God-induced immortal energy in us, then our ability to comprehend must come from the physical body that we have. If neurons are small switches that trigger other switches when enough inputs agree, then where does comprehension – which simple computers certainly lack – come from?
Maybe the solution is that our neurons have a random component – quantum physics. Maybe the solution is a version of Life where survival with more than three neighbors isn’t impossible – just unlikely? Where cells can come to life from nothing by pure (small) chance?