> ...even if from the legal standpoint with the > main concern of liability. Should that be lack of liability? (Its amazing what corporate America gets away with by bribing congress (err, 'PAC contributions'))
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Gadi Evron <[email protected]> wrote: > A new research paper from the Freedom And Law Center deals with issues > that some of us keep raising these past few years, and does a good job > at it - bionic hacking (or cybernetic hacking if you prefer). > > "Killed by Code: Software Transparency in Implantable Medical Devices" > outlines some of the history of these devices and even shows some cases > where devices have been recalled (likely due to software issues). > > Some of the paper's recommendations are especially interesting, such as > to create a database of implantable devices code, so that if the vendor > disappears it can still be patched (I rephrased). > > While unintentional, I am considered the father of this field (not that > I'm complaining) and I can't even begin to tell you how excited I am > that a field I have been evangelizing for some years now if finally > getting more attention -- even if from the legal standpoint with the > main concern of liability. > > Still, I can't help but maintain some skepticism that before some > disaster happens (to us or others) this won't be taken too seriously. > > The paper can be found here: > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2010/transparent-medical-devices.html > > Here's a 2007 Wired article covering the subject from a talk I gave, > covering the subject from a different perspective: > http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/08/will-the-bionic/ > _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
