You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

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

The word has gotten used in so many different contexts that it even defies your otherwise adequate definition. What about "life" hackers or "bio" hackers. We can't assign any intentionality to life or biology. So in that painfully vague context, hacking is just getting around any sort of natural constraint with yet some other form of technology. So technology itself becomes a form of "hack".

The problem is one of usage. When we say "tech" as opposed to technology, it's obvious by the usage that we don't mean building a fire. It refers to computer technology. It's both useful and obvious enough to legitimize this usage. Nobody is actually confused when someone says "tech" that they might be referring to building stone archways.

It's similar to hacking. The usage dictates the meaning of the word. In the broadest sense, hacking seems to be defined as "finding a less costly or more efficient means to cause a particular system to perform a desired function, that is to circumvent normal constraints".

But this doesn't always connote malevolence. And yet, when 99.99% of people use the term hacking today, they are most definitely referring to malevolent actions, as in remotely accessing something they should not, or intentionally causing something to perform a purpose other that it's designed one. It's obvious that there is a sufficient categorical difference between the malevolent kind of hacking and the benign/neutral type of hacking that we do need different terms for them.

But there seems to be a deeper implication to hacking, namely that you are messing with the "interpretive" or "computative" aspects of the system itself in order to be doing hacking. I could get my body to lose weight by changing certain foods that I eat, or by using a pill that blocks certain nutrients. None of these would really be "biohacking". But if we could change the genetic code, or we took a drug that changed the behavior of cellular receptors - now we'd be hacking. So it isn't about changing the input into the system, hacking involves changing the computation itself, or surmounting some defense to access the internal code.

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. So are magic tricks "brain hacks"? Is an "I Spy" book a brain hack because it strains our systems of perception? I don't think so. If these guys had changed the source code to substitute an 8 where it read a '3' initially, that would be hacking. But they only caused the car to see the wrong number because they manipulated the sign itself.

But then again, tricking a system with bad input can cause you to gain access to things you otherwise wouldn't be able to. Sort of like hypnosis. So perhaps we MUST consider INTENTION in our definition of hacking. Tricking a car into going 85 still doesn't appear to be hacking to me. Now, if they'd done that in order to gain access to something in the car to steal it? Now it becomes hacking.

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.

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
0

[–] chirogonemd ago 

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