3/31/2017 0 Comments March 31st, 2017Blog 10
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/how-a-secret-cyberwar-program-worked.html?_r=0 Here is an article which comes with a useful infographic about yet another program designed and executed by our friends at the National Security Agency (NSA). The operation outlined in this article is known as STUXNET, the mission of which is ultimately unknown but is believed to be to hinder or destroy the equipment being used by the Iranian government to develop nuclear substances for weaponization. The of the release of the STUXNET code by the NSA resulted in many other systems other than the assumed target, damaging the systems belonging to many other countries. It is hard to imagine what threat was of such importance that the infection and damage inflicted to so many unintended systems warranted this level of action. This action seemingly shows that the NSA and the United States government has little regard for the result of their actions as long as there is little impact to the United States. How many other classified operations are currently underway that are similar to this one? What is the justification of this operation? The official statement of the United States government is that the operation delayed the attempts of the Iranian government in producing weaponized nuclear material. Was the delay worth the cost if the end result is the same, I would argue no. In addition to the operation not appearing to have any meaningful result in its intended mission, it also sets a precedent for the actions of the NSA and the U.S. government. If the NSA is willing to produce an uncontrollable malicious code with the goal of annoying the Iranian nuclear program, a code that causes extensive damage to unintended third parties, then we can expect that their “acceptable collateral damage” for a more lofty goal would be substantially higher. Another precedent set by this action is the use of cyber warfare and espionage in operations that are a preemptive attack against perceived enemies. There is no way to know the true threat, if any, the Iranian nuclear program posed to the United States, but this operation seems too far removed from the goal of protecting national security and closer to an antagonistic attack.
0 Comments
3/17/2017 0 Comments March 17th, 2017Blog 8
http://one.npr.org/?sharedMediaId=519593195:519593196 This interview highlights some of the revelations provided by the recent leak of internal CIA documents by WikiLeaks. There are a few topics covered in the short interview, most of which are about hacks and encryption. But the idea that caught my attention and got me thinking was if the government should be notifying the organizations that develop the technologies about the vulnerabilities that the government is exploiting. The ability to collect information is the bread and butter of an intelligence agency. By notifying a technology developer of a vulnerability an intelligence agency is using the agency would effectively be restricting access to information the agency would either have trouble gaining by another means or would not be able to obtain at all. On the other hand, by not notifying a technology developer of the vulnerability the intelligence agency is using then they are essentially leaving an entry point for other parties to access. If the intelligence agency was able to find a particular exploit then it is given that some other party would eventually find this exploit as well given enough time and effort. I think it would be wonderful if the intelligence community notified technology developers of vulnerabilities in their product but I know that it is extremely unlikely for this activity to take place due to the secretiveness of these types of government agencies. I think that the reach of the government intelligence agencies has become overstretched. These intelligence agencies are actively seeking technological exploits and hacks to pry their way into data to which they were not meant to have access. The main problem that I have with the current scenario is that there is distinct lack of government transparency. The government is supposed to be a champion for the people, but instead it has become an oppressor. By continuing in the activity of mass surveillance and not disclosing sensitive vulnerabilities found during their quest for more data, the government intelligence agencies are imposing their will on the governed instead of the governed requesting or even desiring this activity. At what point does the government cross the line between an entity for the benefit of its citizens and and entity for the benefit of itself. The message which is broadcast by the actions of the intelligence community is that every person is under investigation and they have no care for the well being of the citizens or their organizations, whether this is the intended message or not. 3/10/2017 1 Comment March 10th, 2017Blog 7
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2608849/encryption/this-data-will-self-destruct--snapchat-meets-encrypted-messaging.html This article outlines the current state of secure messaging and the new developments that have become available recently. In short, this article states that the new developments in secure messaging is to destroy any record of the message in addition to the encryption of the transmission of the message. This new type of service can be very helpful for individuals that want to send sensitive data such as legal documents or internal company communications. The new services can also be used for more unsavory ends, such as criminals communicating their plans or for terrorist groups to organize their movements. Because the service would undoubtedly be used for all manner of communication, both ethical and unethical, at some point a governmental agency will develop tools in order to circumnavigate the security features set in place by these new services. I believe that although these services could, and likely would be, used towards unethical ends, they are in and of themselves not unethical. There is, in fact, a perfectly valid use for these types of services and because of that reason they should continue to exist. I also strongly urge the individuals who are developing these services do so with the utmost care for the robustness of their security devices, if a secure messaging services in being provided to members of the public then it must be as resilient to cracking as possible. 3/3/2017 1 Comment March 03rd, 2017Blog 6
https://qz.com/871815/sex-robots-experts-predict-human-robot-marriage-will-be-legal-by-2050/ This article prompts the discussion on romantic relationships and marriage between robots and humans. There are already sex robots being produced and are easily purchased throughout the world and some say that it is the next natural step for some people to marry future versions of these types of devices. There is, of course, a counter argument to this idea which essentially states that marriage can only be between a human and another human. This sound eerily like the argument that was used against taboo marriages from the past, such as a union between black and white people or a union between same sexed people. Currently any type of robotic partner stand in that the average person can obtain today is unlikely to elicit a strong enough emotional bond to urge that person to form an emotional or physical relationship with their robot, but this does not mean that technology in this field will not continue to advance. As artificial intelligence continues to progress in its complexity and availability it is not unthinkable that the robotic partners of the future will be extremely lifelike, to the point where a person could fall in love with their robot. I think that there is nothing wrong with this. I think that it would be more unethical to prevent a person’s choice in relationships rather than accepting it. Aside from the ethical point of the matter I strongly believe that governments should not have laws regarding the relationships, sexual or otherwise, of consenting adults. To be clear there are really two issues at play here, the acceptance of a person's choice in a robotic partner and the ability to legally marry a robot. As a society, we have fought long and hard to establish and preserve the rights to love who we choose, so I feel that we should not deny that same right to a person who chooses to love a robot. Yet, I do not think that a legal marriage to a robot should be allowed. One reason for this is because this would lead to the potential situation where a robot would have legal guardianship of a child, what would happen in the case of the human parent’s death? Another situation I can think of that would cause complication is divorce, if a marriage between a human and a robot is treated the same as a current marriage then it would be very difficult for a person to divorce a robot. Would there ever be a situation where a robot would create a situation which would merit a divorce? I am sure there are other good reasons against (or even for) marriage with robots out there, are there any that you feel strongly about? |
AuthorPearce : CS-SE student Archives
May 2017
Categories |