0
0

[–] Deceneu ago 

I don't think what these guys did to the Tesla was hacking. They just changed the input by "fooling" the car into seeing something that wasn't there.

That definition applies also to SQL Injection which is definitely a computer-technology-malevolent-hacking.

0
0

[–] chirogonemd ago  (edited ago)

Even just a cursory glance made me think I might be using the wrong term for input here. This injection appears to be insertion of malevolent code. But the Tesla guys didn't insert any code. They didn't change the way the computer was interpreting the world...they changed the world.

I guess if we imagined a facial recognition software that permitted only one guy to enter who had a moustache. If somebody without a moustache could trick the sensor by putting electrical tape above his lip, that wouldn't be hacking. Would it? Granted this would be very poor software but it is just an example.

I just don't think every type of trick is also a type of hack.

The whole convo is interesting though. Definitely some philosophical/ethical implications in there.

0
1

[–] Deceneu 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

But the Tesla guys didn't insert any code.

Neither is the case in the SQL Injection attacks.

The inserted part is only a datum, like a picture.

The fact that the application vulnerable to SQL Injection is allowing itself to treat a datum like code (under certain circumstances) is the equivalent of the ML/AI firmware/software in the camera module choosing (of its own volition) to interpret a particular datum (picture) as code meaning to ride at 35mph or 85mph.

In other words, treating the real-world as the indirect storage to your code, was bound to be vulnerable to Injection Attacks.

See my other comment as well: https://voat.co/v/technology/3666526/22591575

0
0

[–] chirogonemd ago 

I am not familiar with this. Will have a look at it today. Thanks.

0
1

[–] Seventh_Jim 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

We can't assign intentionality to life or biology

 

Not everyone is an atheist. I absolutely can.

I could get my body to lose weight by changing certain foods that I eat, or by using a pill that blocks certain nutrients.

 

Say a woman takes a pill that interrupts her natural reproductive cycles and renders herself temporarily barren. I'd call that biohacking.

So perhaps we MUST consider INTENTION in our definition of hacking.

 

Yes. Hacking is a social action, not a technical one. It is at it's core a rejection of perceived unjust authority, and taking action to subvert that authority. It's pretty jewish in that way.

You are framing this article as man vs. machine, and then saying the machine was not hacked. I'm framing it as man vs. man, and saying the design was hacked.

0
1

[–] chirogonemd 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Yes, the example of the birth control is a very interesting one. It will give me something to think about.

But, given this revised description of hacking as a response to unjust authority, are you indicating the authority is God?

The authority is quite simple in the case of technology, because someone always owns it. But with "bio"hacking or "life hacks", where is the malevolence or the revolution? Against whom I should say....or is the uprising simply against the constraints of reality herself, or the demiurge.

You weren't kidding. It's incredibly Jewish.