5 ms·

Presumably ... although I suspect that sensors will be cheap and ubiquitous enough that gargoyles in the manner that Stephenson described them will be quite red

Presumably ... although I suspect that sensors will be cheap and ubiquitous enough that gargoyles in the manner that Stephenson described them will be quite redundant.

vidarh 12y ago
In fact, sensors and delivery systems are close enough to being cheap and ubiquitous enough to enable non-governmental "competing" intelligence organizations becoming a problem. I keep expecting the first publicly known example to be conspiracy nutcases deploying drones into Area 51 or similar... We've already seen what the semi-anonymity of hacking over the network leads to. Over the next few years, we're likely to see the next step: With robotic delivery platforms becoming small enough and cheap enough to be hard to stop/track (either because they're hard to spot, or simply because they're cheap enough that there can be ridiculous numbers of them), and sensors and networking lets "anyone" capture high quality images etc., while gaining some chance at evading capture by being physically detached from an intrusion. On one hand there's plenty of potential for abuse against individuals, and for corporate espionage and organized crime. On the other hand, it seems like we're at a stage where it may become incredibly hard for state intelligence and military actors to prevent individual civilians, political groups or organized crime from carrying out intrusions of an unprecedented level.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  "In fact, sensors and delivery systems are close enough to being cheap and ubiquitous enough to enable non-governmental "competing" intelligence organizations becoming a problem." Isn't it called Google?
  - whatevsbro 12y ago
    Google isn't competing.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- olefoo 12y ago
  Just wait 'til someone finds a zero day for Otis equipment that lets you turn an elevator into a remote control assassination tool. Facial recognition is good enough that if you had the right systems in play you could automate the whole kill chain from identification to placement to action. And here's the thing; it's a tool that's most effective against the midlist, the strivers, the up and coming execs and entrepreneurs who can't afford a real security detail yet. If you start hearing a lot of stories about promising young execs dying by weird household and office mishaps that could involve automated machinery ( like burned to death by scalding water from a dishwasher, electrocutions, garage doors closing at inopportune moments or such.)... you might be seeing traces of an organized campaign. Just something to think about next time you step into a hotel elevator...
  - pdkl95 12y ago
    > someone finds a zero day for Otis equipment that lets you turn an elevator... I'm reminded of the EE-vs-CS joke about how to design a toaster[1]. Engineering-major rivalries aside, I've always liked it for its caution against over-engineering. For some things - such as elevators - we hit "good enough" a long time ago. I wonder if "non-programmability" will become a popular feature in the future, specifically to avoid these risks. Using non-Turing Complete "Little Languages"[2] or hardware that's fixed to a single circuit could help. Unfortunately, it's probably too late; we spent the last few decades putting CPUs into everything, and now we get to slowly find out how many security holes that additional complexity left us with. [1] http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/hack/ktoast.html http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/hack/ktoast.html [2] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LittleLanguage http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LittleLanguage
contingencies 12y ago
You are correct.

Presumably ... although I suspect that sensors will be cheap and ubiquitous enough that gargoyles in the manner that Stephenson described them will be quite redundant.

vidarh 12y ago

In fact, sensors and delivery systems are close enough to being cheap and ubiquitous enough to enable non-governmental "competing" intelligence organizations becoming a problem. I keep expecting the first publicly known example to be conspiracy nutcases deploying drones into Area 51 or similar... We've already seen what the semi-anonymity of hacking over the network leads to. Over the next few years, we're likely to see the next step: With robotic delivery platforms becoming small enough and cheap enough to be hard to stop/track (either because they're hard to spot, or simply because they're cheap enough that there can be ridiculous numbers of them), and sensors and networking lets "anyone" capture high quality images etc., while gaining some chance at evading capture by being physically detached from an intrusion. On one hand there's plenty of potential for abuse against individuals, and for corporate espionage and organized crime. On the other hand, it seems like we're at a stage where it may become incredibly hard for state intelligence and military actors to prevent individual civilians, political groups or organized crime from carrying out intrusions of an unprecedented level.

lotsofmangos 12y ago
"In fact, sensors and delivery systems are close enough to being cheap and ubiquitous enough to enable non-governmental "competing" intelligence organizations becoming a problem." Isn't it called Google?
- whatevsbro 12y ago
  Google isn't competing.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
olefoo 12y ago
Just wait 'til someone finds a zero day for Otis equipment that lets you turn an elevator into a remote control assassination tool. Facial recognition is good enough that if you had the right systems in play you could automate the whole kill chain from identification to placement to action. And here's the thing; it's a tool that's most effective against the midlist, the strivers, the up and coming execs and entrepreneurs who can't afford a real security detail yet. If you start hearing a lot of stories about promising young execs dying by weird household and office mishaps that could involve automated machinery ( like burned to death by scalding water from a dishwasher, electrocutions, garage doors closing at inopportune moments or such.)... you might be seeing traces of an organized campaign. Just something to think about next time you step into a hotel elevator...
- pdkl95 12y ago
  > someone finds a zero day for Otis equipment that lets you turn an elevator... I'm reminded of the EE-vs-CS joke about how to design a toaster[1]. Engineering-major rivalries aside, I've always liked it for its caution against over-engineering. For some things - such as elevators - we hit "good enough" a long time ago. I wonder if "non-programmability" will become a popular feature in the future, specifically to avoid these risks. Using non-Turing Complete "Little Languages"[2] or hardware that's fixed to a single circuit could help. Unfortunately, it's probably too late; we spent the last few decades putting CPUs into everything, and now we get to slowly find out how many security holes that additional complexity left us with. [1] http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/hack/ktoast.html http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/hack/ktoast.html [2] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LittleLanguage http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LittleLanguage

contingencies 12y ago

You are correct.