NationStates

G-Tech Corporation wrote:

OMGeverynameistaken wrote:Space Russia's hats are superior to all other hats. This is a confirmed, scientific, fact. They're not even that expensive to produce.

And since this is a fact all Space Russian's wear suitably impressive hats, as there are no drawbacks when said hats are compared to the naked scalp. *nods sagely*

And since there are no drawbacks to wearing Space Russian headgear, Space Russians are the most perfect form of life in the galaxy.

OMGeverynameistaken wrote:

G-Tech Corporation wrote:
And since this is a fact all Space Russian's wear suitably impressive hats, as there are no drawbacks when said hats are compared to the naked scalp. *nods sagely*

And since there are no drawbacks to wearing Space Russian headgear, Space Russians are the most perfect form of life in the galaxy.

No, their hats are.

Balrogga wrote:

OMGeverynameistaken wrote:And since there are no drawbacks to wearing Space Russian headgear, Space Russians are the most perfect form of life in the galaxy.

No, their hats are.

Brainteasers have clearly overtaken Space Russia, forcing their human hosts to do their bidding.

Arthropoda Ingens wrote:

Balrogga wrote:No, their hats are.

Brainteasers have clearly overtaken Space Russia, forcing their human hosts to do their bidding.

This entire train of thought reminds me of that cute little movie 'Meet the Robinsons' where a sentient bowler hat takes over the world.

Space Russia loses a bit of respect right now.

Granted, at least the head warming overlords aren't bowlers... but still.

Feazanthia wrote:Then again, all this is fluff; and quite frankly the idea of someone detonating an EMP for the sole purpose of disabling an immune system (since, as we've been over, nearly any macro-scale piece of technology can be rendered effectively immune) is ludicrous.

Except that nanobots are literally by definition not macro-scale. But okay, I'll concede alternative architectures would avoid this issue. Here's a rather more frightening scenario:
Given: the nanobots obviously need some means of sending or receiving communications in order to coordinate efforts;
Given: governments change, and any system can be hacked;
Doesn't this present the rather worrying possibility of a government coming to power that removes dissidents (or even people who vote against it) by transmitting shutdown orders to their nanobot immune systems, leaving them helpless against the most trivial infection? Alternatively, couldn't a technologically-savvy individual murder anyone he wants by doing the same thing? And in wartime, couldn't the enemy power do likewise?

Of course, if this is actually what your government does and that's the whole point, feel free to stop me right now. Not everyone's a free country, after all.

A more reasonable alternative might be to leave the natural immune system in place, and have the rough equivalent of pharmacies where one can acquire injections (or even pill-capsules) of nannies specialized for fighting particular types of infection. "You have breast cancer. Take some 38-C and call me in the morning." After finishing their job they would go inert and eventually be naturally flushed from the body.

Menelmacar wrote:

Feazanthia wrote:Then again, all this is fluff; and quite frankly the idea of someone detonating an EMP for the sole purpose of disabling an immune system (since, as we've been over, nearly any macro-scale piece of technology can be rendered effectively immune) is ludicrous.

Except that nanobots are literally by definition not macro-scale. But okay, I'll concede alternative architectures would avoid this issue. Here's a rather more frightening scenario:
Given: the nanobots obviously need some means of sending or receiving communications in order to coordinate efforts;
Given: governments change, and any system can be hacked;
Doesn't this present the rather worrying possibility of a government coming to power that removes dissidents (or even people who vote against it) by transmitting shutdown orders to their nanobot immune systems, leaving them helpless against the most trivial infection? Alternatively, couldn't a technologically-savvy individual murder anyone he wants by doing the same thing? And in wartime, couldn't the enemy power do likewise?

Of course, if this is actually what your government does and that's the whole point, feel free to stop me right now. Not everyone's a free country, after all.

A more reasonable alternative might be to leave the natural immune system in place, and have the rough equivalent of pharmacies where one can acquire injections (or even pill-capsules) of nannies specialized for fighting particular types of infection. "You have breast cancer. Take some 38-C and call me in the morning." After finishing their job they would go inert and eventually be naturally flushed from the body.

The security-convenience conundrum is nothing new, but in fact, it's not that difficult to simply close off the nanites within a person's body to not accept external signals, just like it isn't that difficult to make a computer hack-proof by simply not connecting it to the internet and locking down any transmitters or receivers it may have. It will slightly increase response time against new viruses not in the existing library, but by then, you can just connect it for a short period of time, download the new firmware, and be on your merry way after cutting the links again.

As it stands, there are already people who can murder others clandestinely. We call them hitmen, or assassins. The only thing that would change is the method, but even then, given the greater advancement of computer technology all around, it'd be easier to track them, or at least no more difficult than looking for a murderer based on forensic evidence from a physical crime scene.

In the modern world, we've already reached the point where a sufficiently 'skilled' group could theoretically shut down everything. They could shut down infrastructure, the military, utilities, information networks, etc. But from a practical standpoint, doing so is basically impossible. The moment a computer is noticeably hacked, it is fixed or removed. Likewise, once someone noticed that their immune system is no longer functioning, it's time to get their nanites replaced. No big deal. Diseases don't kill people on the spot, and once someone even appears to have a sign of an illness, it's time to go in to get it checked and repaired or replaced.

It is basically impossible except in doomsday scenarios to simultaneously hack every computer in a given nation, due to differences in hardware/software, different network protocols, isolated networks, and the fact that once it's detected, professionals go to work clearing the infection, and at the end of the day, if they're at wits end, they can disconnect the computer, wipe it, and reinstall the software. In order to successfully pull something like that off, you'd have to somehow infect every network clandestinely, which is rather difficult given how easily such things can be monitored. Careless users are always easy targets, but professionals will notice if something's showing up as eating up mystery bandwidth or communicating with an unknown server.

Menelmacar wrote:

Feazanthia wrote:Then again, all this is fluff; and quite frankly the idea of someone detonating an EMP for the sole purpose of disabling an immune system (since, as we've been over, nearly any macro-scale piece of technology can be rendered effectively immune) is ludicrous.

Except that nanobots are literally by definition not macro-scale. But okay, I'll concede alternative architectures would avoid this issue. Here's a rather more frightening scenario:
Given: the nanobots obviously need some means of sending or receiving communications in order to coordinate efforts;
Given: governments change, and any system can be hacked;
Doesn't this present the rather worrying possibility of a government coming to power that removes dissidents (or even people who vote against it) by transmitting shutdown orders to their nanobot immune systems, leaving them helpless against the most trivial infection? Alternatively, couldn't a technologically-savvy individual murder anyone he wants by doing the same thing? And in wartime, couldn't the enemy power do likewise?

Of course, if this is actually what your government does and that's the whole point, feel free to stop me right now. Not everyone's a free country, after all.

A more reasonable alternative might be to leave the natural immune system in place, and have the rough equivalent of pharmacies where one can acquire injections (or even pill-capsules) of nannies specialized for fighting particular types of infection. "You have breast cancer. Take some 38-C and call me in the morning." After finishing their job they would go inert and eventually be naturally flushed from the body.

That not the cae actually. Quantum computers are 100% hack proof.

I'm not aware of any encryption scheme which is proof from outside interference, quantum schemes included.

I'm trying to figure out why nanites or micrites couldn't - shouldn't, really - coordinate as a swarm via signal distribution based on their programming inside the organism they're operating in. As opposed to being externally controlled.

You know, like our immune system already functions.

Arthropoda Ingens wrote:I'm trying to figure out why nanites or micrites couldn't - shouldn't, really - coordinate as a swarm via signal distribution based on their programming inside the organism they're operating in. As opposed to being externally controlled.

You know, like our immune system already functions.

I was going to say, wouldn't the most cheapest method be to have medical nanites operate off of the body's own chemical signals? The human body is generally pretty good at knowing when something is wrong. Too good, as I am sure many of my fellow allergy sufferers are acutely aware of in this wonderful time of seasonal change. Of course, you could throw in the swarm computing so that the system doesn't overreact in the way the natural immune system does.

They don't need to be hack-proof, merely sufficiently hack-resistant as to make them impractical to seriously attack directly. This is already possible, however, since the modern AES256 system would take far longer than the age of the universe to break via brute-force, and would yield extreme numbers of false-positives along the way especially if the enciphered data is not known (which it obviously should not be). Even theorized breaks in these schemes do not yield useful shortcuts.

The key, as always, is to avoid side-channel attacks. The sort of 'drive-by-download' or other common attack used to surreptitiously install and run malicious software would be extremely easy to defeat for a special-purpose, relatively closed-loop system such as a nanite-based immune booster. For one, they should be rarely connecting to any external data source, and when they do, for a tiny handful of purposes (receive new vaccine data, potentially transmit collected data for medical analysis). Provided they are cheap enough, it's entirely possible to build them only with ROM, simply replacing them every time a new vaccine firmware update is issued. This may even be the more likely path, as it also allows the physical structure of the nanites to be upgraded in the process.

We tend to avoid the use of nanites and similar as such things can go terribly wrong. A "do more with less" attitude is the most prevalent. Sskiss as a whole are a hardy lot with a robust immune response. Which for the most part does just fine on its own in dealing with pathogens and such.

Ibis Galaxy alliance wrote:That not the cae actually. Quantum computers are 100% hack proof.

Absolutely untrue. The reason computers can be hacked is because typically the software they run (including the Operating System) has bugs. The programming of a quantum computer is no less likely to have bugs than that of a classical computer. Indeed, the brain-frying nature of quantum mechanics means I might expect early quantum programs to be more buggy.

Obviously, then, a computer system that is proven to have no bugs or flaws can be proven to be unhackable. It's not enough to just be unable to find any bugs though, mathematical techniques must be employed to prove security. The more a program does, the more complicated it is, and the larger the task of proving it secure becomes. Something like a sensor processing computer, that turns raw readings into a 3D map on a dedicated display? Quite possibly provably secure. A general-purpose desktop system, expected to run all sorts of third party software and support a sophisticated interactive interface? Much more complicated to prove security.

In the UIF, getting yourself implanted with medical nanites to supplement immune systems is considered an elective procedure not available under the national health service, so only the wealthier citizens can afford it.

At the same time, all navy personnel are given variety of different nanites, each performing a single task. As well as supplementing immune systems, these nanites also cauterise wounds faster than normal. They can also manufacture chemical compounds like adrenaline, caffeine, morphine and others as needed to keep the service member in optimal shape. Additionally, they can assist the digestive process, making the nutrient extraction process more efficient so the service member can get the same nourishment from eating less. They also strengthen the body itself over time, reinforcing the skeleton and increasing the amount of muscle gained through exercise.

Although some pharmaceutical companies produce nanites which can be externally programmed and/or self-replicate, the majority of manufacturers find this to be more trouble than its worth due to the risks of hacking or grey-goo style malfunction. Most nanites cannot be reprogrammed and do not receive external commands; each one responds as appropriate to the chemical signals of the body itself. If the nanites for some reason aren't behaving as they should then the usual treatment is to inject the patient with another batch of nanites which hunt down and kill the defective ones, then shut down themselves, leaving the body ready to be injected with fresh nanites. A patient's blood nanite count is monitored like a diabetic would check their blood sugar to ensure it doesn't drop or, in the case where the nanites are self replicating, climb too high. Nanites which die naturally can be topped up every few months or years with more injections.

My model of hackability:

H = c / t

where H is a unitless index indicating the ease of being broken into, c is the number of inputs, and t is the number of man-hours spent fixing bugs and security holes. In other words, unless your nation has put infinite man-hours into fixing bugs (or negative), H will always be greater than zero, and therefore hacking the system is possible, as long as c is greater than zero; even one line of communication can result in a security breach, no matter how seemingly mundane. Thus, if the nanites being describe communicate at all, they can theoretically be hacked.

However, this model does not address two things - the extent of the hacking, and the ease of hacking. If the nanites are responding solely to chemical signals in the body, then you'd have to be influencing the target's hormones in order to affect the nanites. Of course, this can mean some significant issues if, say, the nanites have a bug where they freak out when exposed to an excess of testosterone and you use a hot woman to seduce a man until his nanites panic and start eating him from the inside, but this is dependent on whether or not such a bug exists in the first place. Similarly, since the exact results of hacking are not addressed, the effect could range from throwing minor errors when processing certain chemicals to a full denial-of-service to unrestricted hijacking of each and every nanite.

In the IC context, YellowApple, Inc. does have an experimental nanite product. Rumor has it that some other corporation stole an untested beta that - when used - actually resulted in the nanites rebuilding bones sideways, upside-down, or even inside-out thanks to a bug when processing calcium-containing compounds, causing disfiguring injuries to those stupid enough to use the bugged nanites.

The whole "macro-scale immunity" line was pointing out that any EMP attack would be aimed solely at knocking out the immune system of a population. I'm under the impression that if someone could set off any sizable EM pulse in a civilian population, they'd choose to go for something much nastier. The whole "MUAHAHAHA YOU WILL NOW SLOWLY DIE" line gets a bit watered down if it requires the addendum "...unless, y'know, you go to the doctor and get a booster or something."

And yes, conceivably any system can be hacked. However when you're dealing with a society where, quite literally, every human being has their nervous system hard-wired into a computer system and connected to planet-spanning networks; network security becomes quite literally a matter of life and death. Fortunately most if not all publicly accessible networks would be watched over by a Synthetic Intelligence (Kiith society being one of the few apparent societies that not only intrinsically trusts their AIs but incorporates them into nearly every aspect of life), and the Amalgamate works faster than even an augmented human brain.

Ibis Galaxy alliance wrote:That not the cae actually. Quantum computers are 100% hack proof.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no computer system even theorized that is hack proof. As others have pointed out, hacks target software, not hardware. What you're thinking of are communications based on quantum entanglement, which are impossible to intercept or scramble based on our current knowledge of quantum physics (which is, admittedly, in its infancy) due to their entangled nature.

Feazanthia wrote:To the best of my knowledge, there is no computer system even theorized that is hack proof. As others have pointed out, hacks target software, not hardware. What you're thinking of are communications based on quantum entanglement, which are impossible to intercept or scramble based on our current knowledge of quantum physics (which is, admittedly, in its infancy) due to their entangled nature.

Well, based on our current knowledge, they're also impossible to send messages with, due to the fact that attempting to observe a message sent via entangled bits changes the state of the bits, effectively scrambling the message

I believe there are designs theorized that would allow you to determine if a sent message was observed by anyone else along the way, however. So you'd know if someone eavesdropped.

Independent Colonial Union wrote:I believe there are designs theorized that would allow you to determine if a sent message was observed by anyone else along the way, however. So you'd know if someone eavesdropped.

Already in the testing phase since a few years ago. Pretty short distance, though, last I checked they did it over singledigit kilometres via laser or something.

I may be able to dig the article out in two weeks.

Independent Colonial Union wrote:

Feazanthia wrote:To the best of my knowledge, there is no computer system even theorized that is hack proof. As others have pointed out, hacks target software, not hardware. What you're thinking of are communications based on quantum entanglement, which are impossible to intercept or scramble based on our current knowledge of quantum physics (which is, admittedly, in its infancy) due to their entangled nature.

Well, based on our current knowledge, they're also impossible to send messages with, due to the fact that attempting to observe a message sent via entangled bits changes the state of the bits, effectively scrambling the message

I believe there are designs theorized that would allow you to determine if a sent message was observed by anyone else along the way, however. So you'd know if someone eavesdropped.

The current state of quantum cryptography allows this; the simplest way is to use a single photon stream with a series of polarized filters arranged based on the cryptographic key at the receiving end to receive the photons and decode them. Because it's a single photon stream, an eavesdropper will have to divert this stream through his or her own set of filters to attempt to record it, but if they do not have the proper key, the chances of their filters being in the proper order and alignment should be infinitesimally small. Hence, a number of the photons will be blocked when they hit the wrong filter, or if they are of a diagonal orientation being directed at a vertical or horizontal filter, the message will become garbled with some of the data lost, and some of it altered. Hence, the receiver will know that something occurred if the message is not received, or if it is jumbled or otherwise corrupted.

Who needs hackers? Just release a space raccoon to chew on the power souce for awhile.

Ibis Galaxy alliance wrote:That not the case actually. Quantum computers are 100% hack proof.

Assuming your hacker does not also have a quantum computer, yes. It's a lot like saying RL encryptions are hack proof with a slide rule.

@Feazanthia:

Fair enough, though you did miss the main thrust of my question; Is the Kiiths' system of government so secure against tyranny that it's trusted with this? I certainly can't think of a single government in existence today or at any point in human history, even in the freest of extant nations, that I'd trust with the ability to suppress my immune system in favor of nannies they programmed and provided.

Even if your network security is as close to impregnable as feasibly possible, and the sapient computer running the whole thing is loyal, there's still a very dangerous possible point of failure at the very top, where if the people in power don't like what you said in an interview or an article they can tweak a few parameters and tell your nannies your heart is a malignant cancerous tumor, or program them to tear open every capillary in your lungs so you drown in your own blood.

To put some perspective on this: I bet you trust your mother implicitly. But would you let her walk around with you everywhere, holding a loaded gun to your head every minute of every day? All your people have guns to their heads. Even if they implicitly trust the hand holding the gun, it's a very, very suboptimal situation.

There is, of course, corruption in the government. However, if the government really wanted you silenced now, there would be nothing stopping them. The government regulates your water supply; they could slip arsenic into your pipes. The government regulates and controls the country's roads and monitors your car; it could force you into an accident or conceivably strap a bomb to your fuel supply. Hell, they could simply manipulate tax records and ruin you financially, or spritz you with ebola when you're at the public library. Modern methods are simply cruder, but no less effective.

Far fetched? Unless you're wearing a tinfoil hat or living in a former Soviet state, seemingly so. And why are they far fetched? Because if something like that happened to one of its critics, the government would instantly be blamed and multiple investigations would be launched.

You must keep in mind, this technology has existed for several centuries in my nation. Just about all the bugs have been worked out. People simply don't get sick. Cancer has been conquered. As long as you stay within the Kiith sphere of influence, the chances of some catastrophic accidental breakdown of the system are ludicrously remote. One must also understand the nature of the Kiith political system. "Kiith" literally means "Clan". The Kiith Federation is a tribal confederacy made up of different independently governed clans, clans that are always competing against one another. If an immune system had such a catastrophic breakdown, not only would the SI Amalgamate launch its own investigation; the other Kiith would as well. Why? Because if one Kiith started killing off potential rivals within its own population (or especially in other clan populations), and this were to come to light, its position would be radically weakened in relation to the others. It could also be declared a "rogue" Kiith, in which case paaura would be declared and all that clan's holdings would be up for grabs. Even if all this didn't happen, the victim's kiithid (family) would be able to, assuming enough evidence existed to convince, rally other kiithid to their banner and at the very least cause more trouble for the Kiith government in question than any individual ever could.

I'm not saying it can't happen. In fact it has happened, to a rather prominent political figure in fact; and the fallout of that event caused a radical shift in government a couple RL years back (during the height of the Cold War in fact, because if there's anything I love it's political drama). I'm saying that, due to the fact that every clan's government is precariously balanced against every other clan, it would be tantamount to political (or actual) suicide for any Kiith government to actually try it.

Wait, why would the government even have control over/access to your medical nanobots?

Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen wrote:Wait, why would the government even have control over/access to your medical nanobots?

So that's why Obama is taking over the US health care system!

Menelmacar wrote:

Ibis Galaxy alliance wrote:That not the case actually. Quantum computers are 100% hack proof.

Assuming your hacker does not also have a quantum computer, yes. It's a lot like saying RL encryptions are hack proof with a slide rule.

@Feazanthia:

Fair enough, though you did miss the main thrust of my question; Is the Kiiths' system of government so secure against tyranny that it's trusted with this? I certainly can't think of a single government in existence today or at any point in human history, even in the freest of extant nations, that I'd trust with the ability to suppress my immune system in favor of nannies they programmed and provided.

Even if your network security is as close to impregnable as feasibly possible, and the sapient computer running the whole thing is loyal, there's still a very dangerous possible point of failure at the very top, where if the people in power don't like what you said in an interview or an article they can tweak a few parameters and tell your nannies your heart is a malignant cancerous tumor, or program them to tear open every capillary in your lungs so you drown in your own blood.

To put some perspective on this: I bet you trust your mother implicitly. But would you let her walk around with you everywhere, holding a loaded gun to your head every minute of every day? All your people have guns to their heads. Even if they implicitly trust the hand holding the gun, it's a very, very suboptimal situation.

That assumes the government, or someone 'high at the top' even has that sort of power or ability, which is no guarantee at all. It's like asking 'what if the government poisoned your flu shot?' without noting that the government doesn't make your flu shot; private companies make it, and private companies usually distribute it, and private companies have every reason not to put a black mark on their record, since that leads to boycotts and bankruptcy. Unless of course you live in a dystopia, but in that case, the government should probably be doing more to oppress the people otherwise you're doing it wrong.