Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
DRM Government Hardware Hacking Software Build

How Laws Restricting Tech Actually Expose Us To Greater Harm 116

Posted by Soulskill from the defective-by-design dept.
An anonymous reader writes: Cory Doctorow has an article in Wired explaining why crafting laws to restrict software is going to hurt us in the long run. The reason? Because we're on an irreversible trajectory toward integrating technology with our cars and houses, bodies and brains. If we don't control the software, then at some point, we won't control parts of our homes and our selves. Doctorow writes, "Any law or regulation that undermines computers' utility or security also ripples through all the systems that have been colonized by the general-purpose computer. And therein lies the potential for untold trouble and mischief.

Code always has flaws, and those flaws are easy for bad guys to find. But if your computer has deliberately been designed with a blind spot, the bad guys will use it to evade detection by you and your antivirus software. That's why a 3-D printer with anti-gun-printing code isn't a 3-D printer that won't print guns—the bad guys will quickly find a way around that. It's a 3-D printer that is vulnerable to hacking by malware creeps who can use your printer's 'security' against you: from bricking your printer to screwing up your prints to introducing subtle structural flaws to simply hijacking the operating system and using it to stage attacks on your whole network."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Laws Restricting Tech Actually Expose Us To Greater Harm More

How Laws Restricting Tech Actually Expose Us To Greater Harm

Comments Filter:

  • Start with copyright (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sinij ( 911942 ) on Wednesday December 24, 2014 @11:45AM (#48667287)
    Start with copyright and patents - these are by far most harmful regulatory areas that hold back our progress.

    Still, not all regulation is bad. We could use more rules safeguarding our privacy. Presently, it is 'loot and pillage' with every Dick, Tom, and Harry from the Silicon Valley trying to insert themselves in the middle and start tracking you.

    • We had such rules once. I think we called them the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

      They used to work pretty good, until we started allowing the will of the Military Industrial Complex and Wall Street to supplant the will of the people.

      Those were the days, my friend. We thought they'd never end.

      • bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT (Score:5, Informative)

        by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Wednesday December 24, 2014 @12:18PM (#48667555) Journal

        The Bill of Rights is a list of things the federal government isn't allowed to do. It doesn't put any limitations on you, me or Dice. You and I can do bad things, but we can't violate the Bill of Rights because the B of R is a set of restrictions on the feds.

        Therefore, ONLY big government can violate your Constitutional rights. Businesses can make you mad, they can provide'poor customer service, but only government can violate your Constitutional rights. The reason for this? Because only government can send men with guns to enforce their will upon. Comcast you can simply cancel, and get Dish or Verizon instead.

        • I think part of the problem is a situation the writers of the bill of rights didn't envision: The modern communications megacorp. They certainly had megacorps of the day (The Tea Party was triggered by the East India Company using political connections to get themselves a favorable tax status and using it to undercut independant shipping companies), but they had nothing with the ability to influence public debate of something like Facebook or Google.

          • Re:bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT (Score:5, Informative)

            by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday December 24, 2014 @12:51PM (#48667759)

            The East India Company was founded in 1600. They ruled an entire subcontinent. They raised armies and waged war [wikipedia.org] in their own name. The authors of the bill of rights knew about the power of corporations.

            • Re:bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT (Score:5, Informative)

              by jythie ( 914043 ) on Wednesday December 24, 2014 @01:07PM (#48667847)
              Yes and no. The East India Company was a very real thing of course, but it was run by people like them to the detriment of 'not people'. Remember that most of the 'founding fathers' came from the american ruling class and wished more power. While they knew 'oppression', they knew it in the same way middle management knows it, unhappy there are people above them but still comfortably in better shape than. So when they pictured things like the East India Corp, it was a model of what people like them could do with their freedom, not something they had to fear being used against them. At most it was competition, something on their level that they would need to counter.

              • It was East India Company tea that the 'founding fathers' dumped in the ocean. And East India Company-related trade restrictions that they suffered under.

              • Re: (Score:3)

                by khallow ( 566160 )
                I think this assertion is silly just at first glance. Most of people involved in the development of the US Constitution were not of a "ruling class" (except in the weak sense of the role they happened to be in). And their selection was by their peers, often for things such as brvery or performance in the Revolutionary War or respect.

                Further, where are the chartered corporations that these power seekers made?

                It's worth noting that we can actually look at what the founding fathers wrote and said, rather

                • The American war for 'independence' was a proxy war instigated by the French. The US was created by the 'mujahideen' of North America, with similar religious ambitions

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jythie ( 914043 )
            Not only that, but they generally envisioned people being able to simply shoot other people if said people were exerting power against them. Then again, they also only envisioned a small percentage of the population as being 'people' which is important to keep in mind since the problems of a ruling class have generally never been the same as an underclass and thus the priorities and tools are crafted differntly.

      • In other words, you're one of those "the past was always better than the present" people that another slashdot article mentioned.

        Here's a little dose of reality: Until about 150 years ago, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government; the state governments could do whatever they wanted, including censorship, banning religions, etc. In fact, in the early days of the US, some states didn't allow ANYBODY to vote for the federal government. In New York for example, the state government decided by i

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Still, not all regulation is bad. We could use more rules safeguarding our privacy. Presently, it is 'loot and pillage' with every Dick, Tom, and Harry from the Silicon Valley trying to insert themselves in the middle and start tracking you.

      I agree in theory; however, in practice what would happen is that the government would hamfistedly attempt to ban businesses from tracking while also instituting a tracking regime of their own. Are you seriously suggesting that we grant more powers to history's most intrusive tracking regime... in order to protect us from being tracked? The irony is too rich. What the USA is doing today with tracking is more than the Gestapo or Stasi could have ever dreamed. Excuse me if I don't believe these are the "good

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by plopez ( 54068 )

      In the US it would require a Constitutional Amendment to remove them completely.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        What makes you think that? The Constitution permits copyright to exist (for the advancement of the useful arts) but does not mandate it.

    • Start with copyright and patents - these are by far most harmful regulatory areas that hold back our progress.

      The problem isn't with copyright. The problem is with additional laws that restrict the development, trade, or perhaps even possession of technology or software which may have the ability to circumvent technical schemes designed to protect copyright. Such restrictions often have unintended (or intended, but bad) consequences.

  • Tin foil just won't do it anymore.

  • With my Printrbot, I have three steps to start printing. First I design what I want using something like OpenSCAD or download the design from somewhere online. Then I have to run it through software like Cura to turn it into something that the printer can actually use. After that I can send it to the printer for printing. Remember that the printer is really just a slightly beefed-up Arduino - it's a pretty simple device. If you were to integrate the anti-gun code into Cura the same way that anti-counterf

    • Yeah, until the AI mistakes my home-designed gun-shaped sex toy for a real gun, and I can't get off.
      Don't judge me! Different strokes for different folks.

    • The anti-counterfeiting looks for a trigger pattern. To detect guns you'd need to look for a feature which can be identified by software, is an absolutely essential part of any gun, and isn't going to be found in anything else. The obvious part is the barrel - should be possible to recognise a tube with an internal diameter matching the common round sizes and walls over a specified thickness.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        Then someone prints the barrel in two parts. The thick tube that matches no common bullet and a liner that is too thin to be a gun barrel.

        • Given the difficulties of printing a durable enough gun barrel, there's an easier way: Scour supplies. Our hypothetical youth gang aren't going to have access to a metalwork shop, but enough time searching plumbing components, metal chair legs, shower rails and anything else hollow and tubular will eventually find a decent barrel - just like the IKEA table that happens to have the exact dimensions of a 19" rack. Then they only have to print off the fiddly mechanical bit at the end that actually strikes the

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by HiThere ( 15173 )

            Just refuse to allow anyone to be named Gatling.

            (Well, I know that's not exactly a Gatling gun, but it's pretty close.)

  • Backdoors depend upon obscurity. Once the obscurity is gone, the security is gone.

    • What security? The security of its maker against your outrageous idea of actually using something you buy the way you want?

  • I'm not onboard with this reasoning. Yes, deliberately placing backdoors in software is security-undermining and stupid. And any unenforcable legislation is bad legislation.

    But I not all restrictions on technology are unenforcable or bad. It is generally illegal for private individuals to make bombs. Yes, this means that the only people who make bombs are criminals, but only because you have changed the semantics to make it so. There is still less bomb-making overall by dint of bomb-making being illegal

    • How do you function from day to day with reasoning like this?

      Bombs by design are indiscriminately destructive, demolishing everything in every direction. The intent is to destroy. Guns are very focused and have very particular intent. This makes them excellent for self defense, like I want to stop this person from robbing me so I aim and shoot.

      • I could adapt a bomb for self-defense. The bomb is wired to a heartbeat sensor. With a big warning label across your chest and back, it might make people think twice about shooting you.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Lobo42 ( 723131 )

        Sure, there are absolutely differences between regulating bombs and regulating guns. That was my point - the virtue of legislating technology is highly dependent upon the specific technology being legislated. The article and OP are arguing, as far as I understand, that all attempts to legislate technology should be assumed to be harmful.

  • That's pretty much the idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday December 24, 2014 @12:09PM (#48667481)

    You're not supposed to control your appliance! If you would, you could not only fix them instead of replacing them, you could find new applications for them instead of buying another, specialized, one. And the maker could not at will end its life so you'd be buying the next one, bigger and better than your old 6 month old ancient garbage.

    It's not a bug. It's a feature.

    • Racket (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 24, 2014 @12:26PM (#48667599)

      That's right.

      If we don't control the software, then at some point, we won't control parts of our homes and our selves.

      "Dear Customer:

      We are now charging a small monthly fee for the use of your Home Software. It will be due in 30 days otherwise your heat and hot water will be turned to default levels and your air conditioning will no longer function.

      Thank you.

      Sincerely,

      Your Home Automation company."

      And you can bet your ass that they'll have lobbied Congress to make that completely legal.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by plopez ( 54068 )

        How does this differ from:
        "Dear Customer:

        We are now charging a small monthly fee for the use of your utilities. It will be due in 30 days otherwise your heat and hot water will be turned off and your air conditioning will no longer function.

        Thank you.

        Sincerely,

        Your utility company."

        • It differs in such a way that I pay my utilities for their use. I use water, I pay for it. I use power, I pay for it. It's not like I have to pay extra again to use power I already bought.

      • Make that legal? As far as I can tell such shit is already legal. What would keep them from doing it? You bought their crap, it sure says something like that they can fuck with you any way they like in the fine print, so what's not legal about it?

        Consumer protection whatnow?

      • I'm pretty sure that's the business model embraced by Lowe's store-brand home automation gear.

  • No "bad guy" is going to waste time and money printing an expensive but soft dangerous gun that can fracture. those hobbyists that make guns use time-honored techniques and you can legally mail order a pistol barrel for $100 - 150

    Very inexpensive guns are plentiful and robust enough for firing dozens of rounds without of failure. the bad guys will use those if on a budget

    • No bad guy in the US would. It's easy enough to get one legally there in most states, and the black market is full of stolen guns. It's a lot harder in most of Europe - if I wanted a gun I couldn't get one legally, and I couldn't just ask Dodgy Dave down the pub to pick one up - access to illegal weapons requires a certain level of criminal connections beyond those available to the typical street thug or youth gang. That's why our youth gangs use knives to do most of their murdering.

  • Because we're on an irreversible trajectory toward integrating technology with our cars and houses, bodies and brains. If we don't control the software, then at some point, we won't control parts of our homes and our selves.

    Last time I checked, humans today can't easily tinker with their own bodies and brains, they have plenty of known bugs and vulnerabilities, and many methods of altering their function are heavily regulated if not illegal.

    While I support the author's idealism, what do you think will happen in this cyborg future when software can be physically addictive or kill you or change your personality? People have always been willing to give up a certain amount of freedom for a certain amount of security, and they will

  • He's the sort of mega-evolved Bennett Haselton. Or Bennet on steroids if you prefer. A lot of obvious waffle and no real clue about anything.

  • "Because we're on an irreversible trajectory toward integrating technology with our cars and houses, bodies and brains"

    Cars and houses sure, but bodies and brains? Speak for yourself there pal, I'm not having anything electronic inside me unless its absolutely necessary such as a pacemaker. There's no way I'd have the kind of trivial consumer tech implants so beloved of sci fi writers. It might be some peoples fantasy to be a cyborg but its not mine.

    • There's already lethal exploits for implanted insulin pumps that can be delivered wirelessly. How much do you want to bet that there's similar for pacemakers that I haven't yet read about?

      Medical device scarcity is terrifyingly bad right now.

  • Thats the start of the problem. People control the software. Like with guns, is people that is the one that kills, abuse, take advantage or use it for their own ends, giving them more tools to control our life is letting not only the saint, pure and morally perfect and responsible ones to do so, but all of them, at all levels. People is not perfect, either the one that decides what the software should do, the ones that actually does that, or the ones that in the end have the capabilities to control them, an

  • Ah, another piece written by a person unable to look past their own subculture. Devices and software are built and marketed around the priorities of the mass consumer, NOT the technical elite.
    • I'm going to go on record that the real zombie apocalypse will probably happen when someone's prank accidentally infects everyone with a consumer-grade neural interface implant, and only the technical elite will be running NoScript on their hindbrains when it goes down.

      :P

  • Cory Doctorow has an article in Wired explaining why crafting laws to restrict software is going to hurt us in the long run. The reason?
    Because we're on an irreversible trajectory toward integrating technology with our cars and houses, bodies and brains. If we don't control the software, then at some point, we won't control parts of our homes and our selves.

    The technocrat in every generation sees himself as the undisputed, never-to-be-questioned, master of an irresistible force of nature. It stings when law and society intrudes to set some boundaries of their own.

  • The little guys that hack and crack are a bit of an issue. But if we get aggressive and keep those who make small efforts from bad acts it will be a much more desireable place for big money to start committing computer crimes. Imagine a drug cartel that can spend a few hundred million dollars getting dedicated to draining bank accounts or running up false charge card bills. Think of it like smuggling heroin. Organized crime can smuggle heroin but individuals have very little chance of surviiving

  • It must be rough for those that rejected Stallman as "too extreme", catching up to where he was in the 80s.

Slashdot Top Deals

Dennis Ritchie is twice as bright as Steve Jobs, and only half wrong. -- Jim Gettys

Close